10 ms·

Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

91 points by 99_00 11y ago

Kenji 11y ago
Haha, I love how the tech community is so liberal and critical against government when it comes to privacy and meddling with our private lives, yet that exact same community is mostly in agreement with UBI which in turn means being completely dependent on the state. If the state thinks you do something it does not like (you're a ''terrorist''), your UBI will be striked - you know that, right?
- ConfuciusSay02 11y ago
  It doesn't mean you're completely dependent on the state, people can still get jobs and have a career, go off grid, same as now. It's almost as if there are different people with different opinions in the tech community. And what's wrong with applauding the government when they make a policy decision that helps your average person, while critisizing them when they make a decision that hurts your average person? The hilarious part is, the rabid anti-government "libertarians" are always the first ones to also be rabidly pro military (the largest socialist entity in the government).
- strasser 11y ago
  Great comments Kenji - pointing out the futility of the liberal mindset.
- manyoso 11y ago
  Liberals understand that we are the state as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Probably we remember this from grade school and also we don't instinctively fear the 'other' like you guys.
  - Kenji 11y ago
    I am not the state. And when I look around, a lot of states certainly aren't 'for' or 'by' the people. Maybe you have to start thinking independently, rather than smugly reciting one-liners from school. The state is a large entreprise that gives us some things and forces us to do things and pay money under the threat of violence and incarceration. I argue for voluntaryism, the notion that people enter into contracts and relationships by their own free will and without force, which is fundamentally at odds with most of what the state does.
    - manyoso 11y ago
      What you argue has been tried in the early have of the 20th century in the United States where workplace safety laws and minimum wages were ruled unconstitutional based on the theory of free contracting parties. It failed MISERABLY and by miserably I mean it left working people in ... literally ... misery. BTW, my 'smug one liner' I learned in school was uttered by President Abraham Lincoln who is widely regarded as our nations greatest President.
      - mindslight 11y ago
        The conqueror of half the country, who set the stage for federal government uber all? Oppressive power structures want freedom for large structures at the top (themselves), to enable domination over individuals on the bottom - a lack of workers' rights fits right into this. Libertarians want freedom for the bottom and should only be secondarily concerned with freedom for the top, lest their philosophy be coopted into supporting standard tyranny.
      - Kenji 11y ago
        You misquoted me. I didn't say 'smug one liner'. I said you smugly recite it. Using an adverb, meaning that the manner in which is was recited was smug, rather than the quote itself, with which I actually am familiar, though I still think it's way too idealistic and plain wrong for most governments in the world. Believe it or not - there are states with virtually no working poor and no minimum wage laws.
      - Voukras 11y ago
        Why do you say it failed miserably? Compared to what? Why do you think the conditions of that time were a result of legislation being insufficient as opposed to quality of life simply being lower in that period of time? By the same logic I can say that not having minimum wage in the 12th century was the reason why people were suffering. It's entirely true there wasn't a minimum wage at that time either, but it completely ignores that: - It would have been impossible to implement during that period because of the way the job market worked and because of the technology of that time. - Their suffering is attributable to other things than the lack of legislation. Until advances in technology makes safety regulations and safety equipment cheap, legislating them means putting people out of a job because the employer cannot pay for all of that, so they can't operate their business anymore. Have you ever considered that perhaps that was the case in the early half of the 20th century? As far as I can tell society and the market does all the heavy lifting and then the government comes and enacts laws for things that were already becoming safer and better. Graphs like this are what lead me to the conclusion I've mentioned: https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/assuming-youre-intellectually-lazy-theres-a-very-strong-argument-for-command-and-control-regulation/ https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/assuming-yo...
- mikeash 11y ago
  As opposed to now, where your livelihood will be destroyed by just putting you in jail? With UBI, if you hold a job you'll still be able to survive even if your benefits are revoked. You're not forcibly dependent on the state (at least not beyond the ways we are now, for roads and utilities and such), it's just an option. I imagine most people here would continue to hold their nice high-paying jobs even if UBI were implemented.
- mindslight 11y ago
  I suspect you might have better luck by not being so confrontational and generalizing, and instead using that energy to better critique the actual topic.
- CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
  To me UBI is tied to the commons, not e state. So would be perectly fine with an implementation that makes it clear the the state has no say in it. But then again I don't advocate the B in UBI, I'm content with any amount that is fair and efficient. If the state want to add a complementary redistribution scheme on top of that, it's fine, but there should be a component they can't touch. For example, one component might be in hands of the central banks as a way to control inflation and such. Another component might be an institution representing the commons. An organization charged with deciding what should remain a commons, and what could be rented out as private property. F.ex. pollution rights could be their mandate to allocate. Edit: Also, checkout https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism it doesn't have to be either or
twoodfin 11y ago
Sorry, which "powerful political forces"? A Canadian newspaper? In keeping with HN guidelines, I don't like to comment on why I flag articles, but I'm going to continue to flag the nearly content-less Basic Income posts that seemingly rocket up the front page a few times a week. I'm sure there are comprehensive, insightful articles on BI out there. If they're ever posted, I'll probably vote them up.
- quirkot 11y ago
  "the [...] Basic Income posts that seemingly rocket up the front page a few times a week" Sounds like HN is also one of those powerful political forces
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  The article stated that the party that won Canada's most recent election has proposed BI. That's "powerful political forces", at least within Canada.
ef4 11y ago
Prediction: if universal basic income starts to become an imminent possibility, the existing public and private sector welfare bureaucracy will lobby against it. Because it will put them all out of a job. Not coincidentally, this is also how you can sell the idea to people with libertarian leanings: universal basic income means much less discretion for unelected administrators, and more discretion for each individual on how dollars get spent.
- debacle 11y ago
  You're already right. See: universal healthcare. No one has been lobbying harder against universal healthcare than insurance companies.
jbrun 11y ago
If you are in Quebec - join us at http://revenudebase.quebec http://revenudebase.quebec In Canada: join us at : http://biencanada.ca http://biencanada.ca
- herge 11y ago
  What do you think about Jean-Robert Sansfaçon's critique in Le Devoir (http://www.ledevoir.com/economie/actualites-economiques/462452/revenu-minimum-simple-ou-simpliste http://www.ledevoir.com/economie/actualites-economiques/4624...), where he calculates that to give only 10,000$ per inhabitant in Quebec per year, you would need 68 billion dollars, ~22 times the amount currently spent on social welfare. Also, that would constitute 70% of the current tax revenue of the Quebec government.
  - graeme 11y ago
    Does that take into account that for middle class people it's effectively a wash? i.e. Your taxes go up $10,000, but you get a $10,000 payment. I haven't seen a cost calculation that explicitly factors this in. I imagine it's still expensive, but perhaps less than it seems? It's a good article though. A lot of people vastly overestimate current social payment expenditures. They're much lower than I thought, and I am not in the camp that thinks basic income will be costless to implement by replacing social programs.
    - JonFish85 11y ago
      "Does that take into account that for middle class people it's effectively a wash?" I guarantee that if/when this gets implemented, it won't be a wash for the middle class. The middle class is where the tax money is, and they'll be the ones bearing the brunt of the bill, as usual.
      - emidln 11y ago
        This is mostly true because we have made forms of non-wage income tax advantaged while capping out how much income we consider during welfare-tax-directed calculations (like social security). This doesn't have to be the case.
godseyeview 11y ago
national socialism is the proper libertarian form of government. First of all, a nation's prime directive is to be sovereign which means it can issue currency debt free interest free based on the credit and good faith of the nation for its people. If a nation cannot do this it should not even be considered a nation but rather a colony or puppet. Once a nation declared itself sovereign under socialism it can issue currency to pay for public works. A national automobile company, national highway system, public housing, taking care of the elderly, research etc. This does not mean private individuals cannot own competing automobile companies, road services or build their own housing development corporations. But these private corporations will specialize in luxury or high quality goods and services. Private corporations will be in a different market, better than standard, specialized, detailed, niche, flair, flavor, fashion, experimental, eccentric, or any market that one can figure that will make more profit from bringing more value than can be made from public employment. The government does not steal from these competing corporations because it does not need to tax since there is no debt from the creation of money. and the money will be worth something because it is directly tied with the output of the public works. People dont get handouts in national socialism. People will have to still work in private industry or public industry but there will always be employment in public works available for those who are able but unable to compete in the highly technical and specialized private sector . The money will be created for the people to create public works for the people. This public infrastructure has value and that is what backs the currency. There is no hyperinflation in this system because money isnt created with no work attached to it. unlike the counterfeit federal reserve system giving currency to corny bankers with no work required in essence theft. Work reeducation camp for jews says. Work will set you free. It is a system of perfect and direct creation of currency to output of public works with no obfuscation or indirection involved. Create Currency -> Public Works Infrastructure and Goods. The nations goods can only be purchased using the national currency and hence a currency exchange established for export sales to foreign markets and hence the national currency has value internationally floated by the value of the nations exports. As the Workers of the public works projects get paid they will spend their money in private shops and circulate the money to the rest of the economy. National Democratic Workers Socialism is being a true Nation with sovereignty. It is the nation possessing the right of Kings which is the right to create a kingdom's currency. A right taken away by the globalist transnational international banker jews. This is the reason the United States revolution was fought for because King George was under hostage to Rothschilds and forced to place unfair taxes on the colonies. This is the reason Abe Lincoln was able to pay and win the CIvil War with his Greenbacks. This is how Hitler was able to get out from under Zionist Hyperinflation genocide and turn Germany from mass starvation genocide to full employment leading in technology, science, health, lifestyle in 6 years with the Riechmark. The Babylon magic money machine will never let you remember your sovereign birthright as a people under national socialism . Under the new world order anarchy they will destroy all nations so no people will have any protection by any nationalism from the international corporation of compartmentalized counterfeit capital communism command and control Benjamin Fulford talks about a global transition to such a system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BGSoXxOJO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BGSoXxOJO4 Bill Still explains all this in the money masters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrJGlXEs8nI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrJGlXEs8nI How Hitler defied the bankers http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1389 http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1389 Libya before Hillary's isis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJURNC0e6Ek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJURNC0e6Ek
ars 11y ago
I support it personally. And I think it should be funded with pollution and waste taxes (all air+water pollution, no myopia on CO2). This way money taken from people for taxes is funneled right back to them instead of having government decide what to do with it. The main complication I see is handling taxes for import+export, you'll probably have to refund taxes on exports, and harder, figure out pollution levels for imports.
hackuser 11y ago
A rarely discussed benefit to minimum income: The higher the social benefits, then I think the greater the labor market liquidity, for both employers and workers. Currently everything else depends on your job: Either you have one, and you have income, benefits, and all that goes with them in a society where everything costs money; or you don't and you have nothing (or very little). But if you don't lose you house, still can afford decent healthcare, and your kids still eat and go to college, etc., then employees can be more flexible: Firings and layoffs are less of a crisis; when everything doesn't depend on having that job then I expect there will be fewer lawsuits. Protections for jobs in law and regulations can be reduced. Also, workers, especially those with mortgages and kids, would be less desparate to keep their jobs. I think that is a healthy thing; they can take more chances and invest more in training and skill acquisition. Also, they are not compelled to do odious or unethical things (such as working off the clock, tolerating abusive environments, particpating in and/or not reporting illegal activities, etc.) due to a sort of employment extortion. It probably would be better for managers to get more honest feedback too (though some would have to learn ways to motivate people besides abusing them!). Some of that is speculative but I believe a European country, I think Denmark, worked out a compromise of high and long-term unemployment benefits in return for making workers easy to terminate. In part it's also a political solution to the concentration of wealth: If you are going to accumulate so much of the wealth due to the way the economy is structured, then in return pay for these social benefits and we all can retain labor market liquidity and maintain political harmony. U.S. workers have less to bargain with: They gave away many of their labor market protections and lost negotiating power by weakening their unions.
- Domenic_S 11y ago
  This handwaviness is typical of pro-BI rhetoric. If there's a tech implosion and 500k workers lose their jobs, is $900/month in BI really going to offset their $3,000/month mortgages meaningfully?
  - devonkim 11y ago
    It's the difference between living on the street homeless like a lot of families experienced in the Rust Belt and getting some breathing room to make a move elsewhere where there may be jobs available. My big concern with BI is that costs of many staples could simply rise as consumer spending goes up due to such depressed wages for most people and we'll be back in the same situation where a shocking number of people still can't afford healthy food or a roof over their head.
jedmeyers 11y ago
Powerful political forces interested in staying in power by bribing electorate with other people's money?
manyoso 11y ago
This seems like an idea that is gaining a lot of momentum. When I see prominent Republican voices speaking about it as "reform" of the welfare state, then I'll know that the time is ripe in America too.
zanny 11y ago
While I am a staunch advocate of UBI as a solution to a massive swath of present and emerging problems around the world, I also do not see the experiments around it leading to its mass adoption in at least the span of decades. Things have to get much worse (and they will) and we will need some active social unrest (on the scale of Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter, except informed about UBI and fighting for it in a unified message) before the wealthy will acknowledge that if they want to stay wealthy, they need a society to be wealthy within, and we won't have one if people are destitute and starving by the millions because traditional capitalist expectations of work and compensation break down in the face of growing automation.
- Florin_Andrei 11y ago
  So that's the question, isn't it. Will it go down smoothly, or will we go through another round of revolutions and unrest everywhere, complete with burning down the mansions and whatnot.
maxxxxx 11y ago
My prediction for Basic Income is that even if it gets introduced a few years/decades later a lot of people will complain (rightfully or not) about all those parasites not doing anything while "job creators" have to pay for it. At least in the US it won't work long term looking at the current discussions about tax rates.
- manyoso 11y ago
  If it is also sold and paired with an elimination of the general income tax I think it could have wide support on the right and left. And how would we pay for it without a national income tax? A value added tax and a carbon tax.
  - debacle 11y ago
    We need to return to a wealth-oriented tax. Neither income tax nor VAT are taxes on wealth. But even as someone without a lot to worry about, I can't think of a fair way to tax wealth outside of land taxes, which would greatly disrupt the economy.
    - manyoso 11y ago
      I would take the cost/benefit of a combination UBI and VAT over a wealth/income tax with current social safety net any day and twice on Sunday.
      - debacle 11y ago
        The problem with VAT is that it's a tax on consumption, not a tax on the accumulation of wealth. It's incongruous with the goals of UBI. A wealth tax and an income tax are two different things.
        manyoso 11y ago
        Yes, I understand that but a VAT need not be out of step with the goals of a UBI if the UBI is protected from the regression of a VAT by scaling it with the cost of living.
afarrell 11y ago
I wonder if there is a way to structure it as a dividend from the profits gained by unemploying people via automation. That way, fixed-income voters have a double incentive to advocate for policies of more automation: - It goes into their pockets - It reduces their cost of living If they vote in large numbers, as retirees do, that creates a large constituency to remove red tape. The problem is making sure there is still enough profit motive to invest.
emartinelli 11y ago
In Brazil, we have a law[1], from 2004, implementing UBI, but it is not nearly applied for all population. This law determine a gradual implementation and I believe that the the full one is far away. There are some benefits for poor people, unfortunately there are frauds and IMHO some mass manipulation from government. [1] http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2004/lei/l10.835.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2004/lei/... (Portuguese)
- nmrm2 11y ago
  Are you referring to bolsa familia? Or is this something else? (I don't speak Portuguese)
  - emartinelli 11y ago
    Yes, I am, Bolsa Familia is a national program. We have a city (Santo Antonio do Pinhal) that seems to have implemented UBI, too (I don't know much about that one). This article[1] (2013), in English, explains the current scenario and the law that I referenced. The original proposal seems interesting to me, but I don't see government efforts to implement it as defined in law. [1] http://www.basicincome.org/news/2013/06/opinion-a-three-step-proposal-to-get-to-a-basic-income-for-all-brazilians/ http://www.basicincome.org/news/2013/06/opinion-a-three-step...
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    No, this is about universal income (bolsa família is means tested). I've never heard about it, I don't think it has gone anywhere.
    - emartinelli 11y ago
      Actually, in theory Bolsa Familia should be kind of step to reach UBI. The referenced law talks about gradual implantation, initially by poor people.
falsestprophet 11y ago
A lot of the minimum income people are also for open borders and I rather doubt you can have both.
xrange 11y ago
Here's something I like to see some discussion on from Basic Income proponents. Does BI need to be rolled out everywhere-all-at-once, or is it possible to do small scale experiments to look at the effects? If you think it is possible to have meaningful smaller scale tests, how small can it be? 1000 participants? 100,000 participants? 10,000,000 participants? And then the big question, would there be any outcomes from these smaller scale tests that would convince you that BI isn't feasible? Can share your list of those undesirable outcomes that would change your mind about the desirability of BI? (No sense in running tests if no one will change their mind). Also, what do people think of the Social Security retirement situation as being a fairly large example of BI, that has been running for the last 80 years on a subset of Americans. Does the fact that they are older invalidate it as an example case in your mind?
- karmacondon 11y ago
  There have been multiple tests of the ideas behind BI: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome * https://decorrespondent.nl/541/Why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39 https://decorrespondent.nl/541/Why-we-should-give-free-money... * http://freakonomics.com/podcast/fighting-poverty-with-actual-evidence-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/fighting-poverty-with-actual... The problem is that it often isn't possible to falsify or confirm ideas based on limited tests. You can set up a minimum income for one town, or give money with no strings attached to several groups of people, but it won't answer a lot of the long term societal questions. It's like asking if you can test social security or universal healthcare. Those tests might not illuminate problems that could occur on a large scale, 50 years down the line. Sometimes the only way to test something is to do it.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I don't think you can do small scale experiments, unless you do it using an entire small country. The idea is that you raise taxes too, and naturally you'll have winners and losers. I don't think the losers (wealthier people) will tolerate being forced into the program while others are left out of it. If you let people choose, then only the winners (poorer people) will choose to participate, which will deeply distort the results. If you can do such an experiment (by, for example, instituting BI in a small country) then there are certainly outcomes that would indicate BI isn't feasible. The big questions are whether people in a BI scheme will continue to work, and whether the higher taxes needed to pay for it will kill the economy. If everybody quits their jobs and the taxes strangle the economy then that indicates BI isn't feasible. If everybody keeps working and the economy proceeds as usual then that indicates it is. I don't think Social Security is a useful example precisely because it's aimed at retirees. You don't get much useful information about people's willingness to continue working when you target it at people who have retired. The tax rates needed to support it also look artificially low because the SS tax base is much younger than the SS recipients, and population growth means the former group is disproportionately large. Finally, it doesn't really look much like a BI scheme, because what you get out of SS is based on what you paid in, it's not at all universal.
anu7df 11y ago
I am inclined to think all this is posturing. UBI has the potential to reduce the friction involved in changing jobs. This alone makes it unpalatable to the corporations. When corporations don't want this, they will lobby and scare people till UBI becomes contentious. I can already see the ads... Booming voice narrator " UBI is tax on the small business. Say no to UBI"
nugget 11y ago
Serious question for folks here - do you believe we can successfully institute a meaningful basic income in the US with the current immigration policies? How would policies have to change given the increased incentives from UBI?
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  Serious answer: I don't think we can institute basic income with the current immigration policies without rioting in the streets.
thisislame 11y ago
The powerful political force behind minimum income is the rentier class who will ultimately capture it as rent. Replacing existing programs with "free choice" is a well-worn playbook. See also: pensions vs. 401k plans.
- civilian 11y ago
  Eer, I don't get it, why wouldn't I want a 401k over a pension? You can't trust pensions. Companies can go bankrupt, and even governments have been going bankrupt and have renegotiated pension plans. I'd much rather slowly tuck away a portion of my own income and have it be labeled as mine, rather than have it be a future debt on some organization's account book.
locopati 11y ago
Honest question - how does UBI address hikes in the cost of basic necessities (food, shelter, clothes) by companies knowing that everyone can afford them?
- drabiega 11y ago
  With markets. As the distribution of income changes so does the distribution of goods and services produced.
- manyoso 11y ago
  The UBI can be scaled by the cost of living index which will shelter it from inflation. We have a sovereign money supply for a reason. Let's use it!
  - X86BSD 11y ago
    I keep seeing people say use the cost of living index. Do any of you realize what a fraud that is? They have taken out the two most expensive categories people spend money on to survive. Food and energy. And it's been like that for decades. That index is as useless as tits on a tree.
    - manyoso 11y ago
      It can be tied directly to inflation or even to GDP. See details here: https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7#.kz2s8ze9d https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-...
- VLM 11y ago
  The market won't change too much. Everyone can afford food and shelter and clothes now, in the former 1st world countries. There are places in the world where people can't get food and thus die in the streets, but this is a rounding error here. Therefore not much will change at the bottom end. Prices might drop slightly due to reduced demand because people will occasionally splurge. Note that this won't actually help with many social problems. For example kids who go to school hungry because mom spent todays money on crack will after UBI merely go to school hungry because mom spent todays money plus UBI on crack. Neither the slumlord nor the supermarket will see a penny more. Cultural changes are much harder to make than mere economic changes.
jerelunruh 11y ago
Let's say that currently rent is $1,000 per month, food is $500, and Alice is earning $2,500. Now UBI is implemented and Alice and all fellow citizens receive $1,000 per month. What will keep the market from easing the entry level rent up to $1,500 and food to $1,000 since the money is available? At first glance it seems like we'd just be choosing a different number representing "broke".
- danharaj 11y ago
  That would be the Marxian claim: wages trend for most workers towards subsistence. Caveat: subsistence is a relative term. I think it's a reasonable question because UBI doesn't change much about the structure of capitalism. And also just like every other welfare program, it will be rolled back inch by inch every time there's a systemic shock and the poors are held to blame.
- drabiega 11y ago
  Because markets still exist. The change in the distribution of income will necessarily incur a change in the distribution of production of goods and services. You would probably expect the price of some necessities to increase a little, especially in the short term, but it's not like we're anywhere near our capacity to produce food and housing.
- manyoso 11y ago
  We tie the UBI to the cost of living index.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    That makes any potential generalised inflation worse, not better...
- twoodfin 11y ago
  BI shouldn't be more inflationary in the aggregate than any other government scheme that redistributes income in a comparable way. The only difference would be which goods have more money chasing them. That choice would be made by the market (of net BI recipients after any tax clawback) instead of by politicians & bureaucrats, which has a certain appeal. Currently, if you want access to much redistributed income, you can only use it to eat what USDA allows you to, or live where HUD tells you to. I find that a rather degrading way to treat our fellow citizens.
lintiness 11y ago
"But more QE may not be politically palatable, as it disproportionately benefits the wealthy, hurts pension plans, and may lead to banks simply hording cash." ok, so the author clearly hasn't got a clue how qe works.
ck2 11y ago
Jeez I wish people would quit this. Minimum income means guaranteed maximum prices for things like rent and food that you cannot live without. You think your $500 a month apartment isn't going to become $800 when the landlord knows everyone is getting at least $1000?
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7#.chjvf9gk6 https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-...
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> No, because they would still have Milton Freidman's famous helicopter money drop. Previously, this took the form of quantitative easing. QE was not the same as the "helicopter drop". The helicopter drop (HD) is much closer to basic income (BI), except that HD might be a one-time thing, whereas BI is ongoing. QE is creating money to buy bonds. This raises the price of bonds, and injects money into the system. But where does it inject the money? To everyone? No, only to those who currently hold bonds - that is, to the wealthy, and to financial institutions. HD and BI, by contrast, give the money to everyone. QE didn't do much to solve the problem of inadequate demand. HD and/or BI may do better. They may do it at the price of increased inflation, true. But under the current circumstances, the Fed would welcome a bit more inflation...
shkkmo 11y ago
One big benefit to minimum income that I never heard discussed is the wonderful ability make the minimum wage obsolete. (Since minimum wage is merely an alternative route to achieve minimum income without using direct taxes and that doesn't help those with no job.) Each time we hit a rough patch we could boost the minimum income to increase liquidity, and drop the minimum wage to stimulate job creation. This has the potential to fix some of the inefficiencies of the job market. There are jobs that people enjoy or find fulfilling that don't provide enough 'value' to exist (or only exist in the black/barter market where minimum wage is not enforced). There are also jobs that nobody enjoys or find fulfilling, that should have been automated already, but haven't because we force people to work to support themselves and thus create a glut of cheap labor with the minimum wage as the price floor. As far as to how we pay for minimum income, I love the idea I ran across on HN of directly and progressively taxing capital/assets rather than income.
jakeogh 11y ago
It is inevitable that the threat of withholding 'basic income' will be used to modify behavior. Didn't pay a fine? Didn't do your taxes? Post "radical" comments on the internet? On the no-fly list? On the no-drive list? Don't have a gov-issued InternetID™? No soup for you. How long until China couples it with it's human scoring system?
- mikerichards 11y ago
  So are you saying that basic income requirements will be very different than welfare is today?
mchahn 11y ago
> A socialists pipe dream, you might say. A common misunderstanding. BI is not socialism. Socialism: A political theory advocating state ownership of industry.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  BI is certainly the type of thing many actual.socialists have proposed, and the definition of socialism you post is, while perhaps what made ght be found in a particularly compact general dictionaries, not particularly accurate or complete, even by the standard of general dictionary definitions.
  - mchahn 11y ago
    Then post your definition and its source. I just googled six of them and they all matched mine.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      Google's is pretty typical of not-unusually-compact general dictionary definitions, "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Unlike yours, it encompasses regulation (which redistributive taxation is generally recognized as a form of) and the focus is on "the community as a whole" (for which the state may be the tool used, or may not) and not just the "the state" as the focus (which is important, since without that it wouldn't include libertarian socialism.)

91 points by 99_00 11y ago

Kenji 11y ago

Haha, I love how the tech community is so liberal and critical against government when it comes to privacy and meddling with our private lives, yet that exact same community is mostly in agreement with UBI which in turn means being completely dependent on the state. If the state thinks you do something it does not like (you're a ''terrorist''), your UBI will be striked - you know that, right?

ConfuciusSay02 11y ago
It doesn't mean you're completely dependent on the state, people can still get jobs and have a career, go off grid, same as now. It's almost as if there are different people with different opinions in the tech community. And what's wrong with applauding the government when they make a policy decision that helps your average person, while critisizing them when they make a decision that hurts your average person? The hilarious part is, the rabid anti-government "libertarians" are always the first ones to also be rabidly pro military (the largest socialist entity in the government).
strasser 11y ago
Great comments Kenji - pointing out the futility of the liberal mindset.
manyoso 11y ago
Liberals understand that we are the state as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Probably we remember this from grade school and also we don't instinctively fear the 'other' like you guys.
- Kenji 11y ago
  I am not the state. And when I look around, a lot of states certainly aren't 'for' or 'by' the people. Maybe you have to start thinking independently, rather than smugly reciting one-liners from school. The state is a large entreprise that gives us some things and forces us to do things and pay money under the threat of violence and incarceration. I argue for voluntaryism, the notion that people enter into contracts and relationships by their own free will and without force, which is fundamentally at odds with most of what the state does.
  - manyoso 11y ago
    What you argue has been tried in the early have of the 20th century in the United States where workplace safety laws and minimum wages were ruled unconstitutional based on the theory of free contracting parties. It failed MISERABLY and by miserably I mean it left working people in ... literally ... misery. BTW, my 'smug one liner' I learned in school was uttered by President Abraham Lincoln who is widely regarded as our nations greatest President.
    - mindslight 11y ago
      The conqueror of half the country, who set the stage for federal government uber all? Oppressive power structures want freedom for large structures at the top (themselves), to enable domination over individuals on the bottom - a lack of workers' rights fits right into this. Libertarians want freedom for the bottom and should only be secondarily concerned with freedom for the top, lest their philosophy be coopted into supporting standard tyranny.
    - Kenji 11y ago
      You misquoted me. I didn't say 'smug one liner'. I said you smugly recite it. Using an adverb, meaning that the manner in which is was recited was smug, rather than the quote itself, with which I actually am familiar, though I still think it's way too idealistic and plain wrong for most governments in the world. Believe it or not - there are states with virtually no working poor and no minimum wage laws.
    - Voukras 11y ago
      Why do you say it failed miserably? Compared to what? Why do you think the conditions of that time were a result of legislation being insufficient as opposed to quality of life simply being lower in that period of time? By the same logic I can say that not having minimum wage in the 12th century was the reason why people were suffering. It's entirely true there wasn't a minimum wage at that time either, but it completely ignores that: - It would have been impossible to implement during that period because of the way the job market worked and because of the technology of that time. - Their suffering is attributable to other things than the lack of legislation. Until advances in technology makes safety regulations and safety equipment cheap, legislating them means putting people out of a job because the employer cannot pay for all of that, so they can't operate their business anymore. Have you ever considered that perhaps that was the case in the early half of the 20th century? As far as I can tell society and the market does all the heavy lifting and then the government comes and enacts laws for things that were already becoming safer and better. Graphs like this are what lead me to the conclusion I've mentioned: https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/assuming-youre-intellectually-lazy-theres-a-very-strong-argument-for-command-and-control-regulation/ https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/assuming-yo...
mikeash 11y ago
As opposed to now, where your livelihood will be destroyed by just putting you in jail? With UBI, if you hold a job you'll still be able to survive even if your benefits are revoked. You're not forcibly dependent on the state (at least not beyond the ways we are now, for roads and utilities and such), it's just an option. I imagine most people here would continue to hold their nice high-paying jobs even if UBI were implemented.
mindslight 11y ago
I suspect you might have better luck by not being so confrontational and generalizing, and instead using that energy to better critique the actual topic.
CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
To me UBI is tied to the commons, not e state. So would be perectly fine with an implementation that makes it clear the the state has no say in it. But then again I don't advocate the B in UBI, I'm content with any amount that is fair and efficient. If the state want to add a complementary redistribution scheme on top of that, it's fine, but there should be a component they can't touch. For example, one component might be in hands of the central banks as a way to control inflation and such. Another component might be an institution representing the commons. An organization charged with deciding what should remain a commons, and what could be rented out as private property. F.ex. pollution rights could be their mandate to allocate. Edit: Also, checkout https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism it doesn't have to be either or

twoodfin 11y ago

Sorry, which "powerful political forces"? A Canadian newspaper? In keeping with HN guidelines, I don't like to comment on why I flag articles, but I'm going to continue to flag the nearly content-less Basic Income posts that seemingly rocket up the front page a few times a week. I'm sure there are comprehensive, insightful articles on BI out there. If they're ever posted, I'll probably vote them up.

quirkot 11y ago
"the [...] Basic Income posts that seemingly rocket up the front page a few times a week" Sounds like HN is also one of those powerful political forces
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
The article stated that the party that won Canada's most recent election has proposed BI. That's "powerful political forces", at least within Canada.

ef4 11y ago

Prediction: if universal basic income starts to become an imminent possibility, the existing public and private sector welfare bureaucracy will lobby against it. Because it will put them all out of a job. Not coincidentally, this is also how you can sell the idea to people with libertarian leanings: universal basic income means much less discretion for unelected administrators, and more discretion for each individual on how dollars get spent.

debacle 11y ago
You're already right. See: universal healthcare. No one has been lobbying harder against universal healthcare than insurance companies.

jbrun 11y ago

If you are in Quebec - join us at http://revenudebase.quebec http://revenudebase.quebec In Canada: join us at : http://biencanada.ca http://biencanada.ca

herge 11y ago
What do you think about Jean-Robert Sansfaçon's critique in Le Devoir (http://www.ledevoir.com/economie/actualites-economiques/462452/revenu-minimum-simple-ou-simpliste http://www.ledevoir.com/economie/actualites-economiques/4624...), where he calculates that to give only 10,000$ per inhabitant in Quebec per year, you would need 68 billion dollars, ~22 times the amount currently spent on social welfare. Also, that would constitute 70% of the current tax revenue of the Quebec government.
- graeme 11y ago
  Does that take into account that for middle class people it's effectively a wash? i.e. Your taxes go up $10,000, but you get a $10,000 payment. I haven't seen a cost calculation that explicitly factors this in. I imagine it's still expensive, but perhaps less than it seems? It's a good article though. A lot of people vastly overestimate current social payment expenditures. They're much lower than I thought, and I am not in the camp that thinks basic income will be costless to implement by replacing social programs.
  - JonFish85 11y ago
    "Does that take into account that for middle class people it's effectively a wash?" I guarantee that if/when this gets implemented, it won't be a wash for the middle class. The middle class is where the tax money is, and they'll be the ones bearing the brunt of the bill, as usual.
    - emidln 11y ago
      This is mostly true because we have made forms of non-wage income tax advantaged while capping out how much income we consider during welfare-tax-directed calculations (like social security). This doesn't have to be the case.

godseyeview 11y ago

national socialism is the proper libertarian form of government. First of all, a nation's prime directive is to be sovereign which means it can issue currency debt free interest free based on the credit and good faith of the nation for its people. If a nation cannot do this it should not even be considered a nation but rather a colony or puppet. Once a nation declared itself sovereign under socialism it can issue currency to pay for public works. A national automobile company, national highway system, public housing, taking care of the elderly, research etc. This does not mean private individuals cannot own competing automobile companies, road services or build their own housing development corporations. But these private corporations will specialize in luxury or high quality goods and services. Private corporations will be in a different market, better than standard, specialized, detailed, niche, flair, flavor, fashion, experimental, eccentric, or any market that one can figure that will make more profit from bringing more value than can be made from public employment. The government does not steal from these competing corporations because it does not need to tax since there is no debt from the creation of money. and the money will be worth something because it is directly tied with the output of the public works. People dont get handouts in national socialism. People will have to still work in private industry or public industry but there will always be employment in public works available for those who are able but unable to compete in the highly technical and specialized private sector . The money will be created for the people to create public works for the people. This public infrastructure has value and that is what backs the currency. There is no hyperinflation in this system because money isnt created with no work attached to it. unlike the counterfeit federal reserve system giving currency to corny bankers with no work required in essence theft. Work reeducation camp for jews says. Work will set you free. It is a system of perfect and direct creation of currency to output of public works with no obfuscation or indirection involved. Create Currency -> Public Works Infrastructure and Goods. The nations goods can only be purchased using the national currency and hence a currency exchange established for export sales to foreign markets and hence the national currency has value internationally floated by the value of the nations exports. As the Workers of the public works projects get paid they will spend their money in private shops and circulate the money to the rest of the economy. National Democratic Workers Socialism is being a true Nation with sovereignty. It is the nation possessing the right of Kings which is the right to create a kingdom's currency. A right taken away by the globalist transnational international banker jews. This is the reason the United States revolution was fought for because King George was under hostage to Rothschilds and forced to place unfair taxes on the colonies. This is the reason Abe Lincoln was able to pay and win the CIvil War with his Greenbacks. This is how Hitler was able to get out from under Zionist Hyperinflation genocide and turn Germany from mass starvation genocide to full employment leading in technology, science, health, lifestyle in 6 years with the Riechmark. The Babylon magic money machine will never let you remember your sovereign birthright as a people under national socialism . Under the new world order anarchy they will destroy all nations so no people will have any protection by any nationalism from the international corporation of compartmentalized counterfeit capital communism command and control Benjamin Fulford talks about a global transition to such a system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BGSoXxOJO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BGSoXxOJO4 Bill Still explains all this in the money masters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrJGlXEs8nI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrJGlXEs8nI How Hitler defied the bankers http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1389 http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1389 Libya before Hillary's isis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJURNC0e6Ek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJURNC0e6Ek

ars 11y ago

I support it personally. And I think it should be funded with pollution and waste taxes (all air+water pollution, no myopia on CO2). This way money taken from people for taxes is funneled right back to them instead of having government decide what to do with it. The main complication I see is handling taxes for import+export, you'll probably have to refund taxes on exports, and harder, figure out pollution levels for imports.

hackuser 11y ago

A rarely discussed benefit to minimum income: The higher the social benefits, then I think the greater the labor market liquidity, for both employers and workers. Currently everything else depends on your job: Either you have one, and you have income, benefits, and all that goes with them in a society where everything costs money; or you don't and you have nothing (or very little). But if you don't lose you house, still can afford decent healthcare, and your kids still eat and go to college, etc., then employees can be more flexible: Firings and layoffs are less of a crisis; when everything doesn't depend on having that job then I expect there will be fewer lawsuits. Protections for jobs in law and regulations can be reduced. Also, workers, especially those with mortgages and kids, would be less desparate to keep their jobs. I think that is a healthy thing; they can take more chances and invest more in training and skill acquisition. Also, they are not compelled to do odious or unethical things (such as working off the clock, tolerating abusive environments, particpating in and/or not reporting illegal activities, etc.) due to a sort of employment extortion. It probably would be better for managers to get more honest feedback too (though some would have to learn ways to motivate people besides abusing them!). Some of that is speculative but I believe a European country, I think Denmark, worked out a compromise of high and long-term unemployment benefits in return for making workers easy to terminate. In part it's also a political solution to the concentration of wealth: If you are going to accumulate so much of the wealth due to the way the economy is structured, then in return pay for these social benefits and we all can retain labor market liquidity and maintain political harmony. U.S. workers have less to bargain with: They gave away many of their labor market protections and lost negotiating power by weakening their unions.

Domenic_S 11y ago
This handwaviness is typical of pro-BI rhetoric. If there's a tech implosion and 500k workers lose their jobs, is $900/month in BI really going to offset their $3,000/month mortgages meaningfully?
- devonkim 11y ago
  It's the difference between living on the street homeless like a lot of families experienced in the Rust Belt and getting some breathing room to make a move elsewhere where there may be jobs available. My big concern with BI is that costs of many staples could simply rise as consumer spending goes up due to such depressed wages for most people and we'll be back in the same situation where a shocking number of people still can't afford healthy food or a roof over their head.

jedmeyers 11y ago

Powerful political forces interested in staying in power by bribing electorate with other people's money?

manyoso 11y ago

This seems like an idea that is gaining a lot of momentum. When I see prominent Republican voices speaking about it as "reform" of the welfare state, then I'll know that the time is ripe in America too.

zanny 11y ago

While I am a staunch advocate of UBI as a solution to a massive swath of present and emerging problems around the world, I also do not see the experiments around it leading to its mass adoption in at least the span of decades. Things have to get much worse (and they will) and we will need some active social unrest (on the scale of Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter, except informed about UBI and fighting for it in a unified message) before the wealthy will acknowledge that if they want to stay wealthy, they need a society to be wealthy within, and we won't have one if people are destitute and starving by the millions because traditional capitalist expectations of work and compensation break down in the face of growing automation.

Florin_Andrei 11y ago
So that's the question, isn't it. Will it go down smoothly, or will we go through another round of revolutions and unrest everywhere, complete with burning down the mansions and whatnot.

maxxxxx 11y ago

My prediction for Basic Income is that even if it gets introduced a few years/decades later a lot of people will complain (rightfully or not) about all those parasites not doing anything while "job creators" have to pay for it. At least in the US it won't work long term looking at the current discussions about tax rates.

manyoso 11y ago
If it is also sold and paired with an elimination of the general income tax I think it could have wide support on the right and left. And how would we pay for it without a national income tax? A value added tax and a carbon tax.
- debacle 11y ago
  We need to return to a wealth-oriented tax. Neither income tax nor VAT are taxes on wealth. But even as someone without a lot to worry about, I can't think of a fair way to tax wealth outside of land taxes, which would greatly disrupt the economy.
  - manyoso 11y ago
    I would take the cost/benefit of a combination UBI and VAT over a wealth/income tax with current social safety net any day and twice on Sunday.
    - debacle 11y ago
      The problem with VAT is that it's a tax on consumption, not a tax on the accumulation of wealth. It's incongruous with the goals of UBI. A wealth tax and an income tax are two different things.
      - manyoso 11y ago
        Yes, I understand that but a VAT need not be out of step with the goals of a UBI if the UBI is protected from the regression of a VAT by scaling it with the cost of living.

afarrell 11y ago

I wonder if there is a way to structure it as a dividend from the profits gained by unemploying people via automation. That way, fixed-income voters have a double incentive to advocate for policies of more automation: - It goes into their pockets - It reduces their cost of living If they vote in large numbers, as retirees do, that creates a large constituency to remove red tape. The problem is making sure there is still enough profit motive to invest.

emartinelli 11y ago

In Brazil, we have a law[1], from 2004, implementing UBI, but it is not nearly applied for all population. This law determine a gradual implementation and I believe that the the full one is far away. There are some benefits for poor people, unfortunately there are frauds and IMHO some mass manipulation from government. [1] http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2004/lei/l10.835.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2004/lei/... (Portuguese)

nmrm2 11y ago
Are you referring to bolsa familia? Or is this something else? (I don't speak Portuguese)
- emartinelli 11y ago
  Yes, I am, Bolsa Familia is a national program. We have a city (Santo Antonio do Pinhal) that seems to have implemented UBI, too (I don't know much about that one). This article[1] (2013), in English, explains the current scenario and the law that I referenced. The original proposal seems interesting to me, but I don't see government efforts to implement it as defined in law. [1] http://www.basicincome.org/news/2013/06/opinion-a-three-step-proposal-to-get-to-a-basic-income-for-all-brazilians/ http://www.basicincome.org/news/2013/06/opinion-a-three-step...
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  No, this is about universal income (bolsa família is means tested). I've never heard about it, I don't think it has gone anywhere.
  - emartinelli 11y ago
    Actually, in theory Bolsa Familia should be kind of step to reach UBI. The referenced law talks about gradual implantation, initially by poor people.

falsestprophet 11y ago

A lot of the minimum income people are also for open borders and I rather doubt you can have both.

xrange 11y ago

Here's something I like to see some discussion on from Basic Income proponents. Does BI need to be rolled out everywhere-all-at-once, or is it possible to do small scale experiments to look at the effects? If you think it is possible to have meaningful smaller scale tests, how small can it be? 1000 participants? 100,000 participants? 10,000,000 participants? And then the big question, would there be any outcomes from these smaller scale tests that would convince you that BI isn't feasible? Can share your list of those undesirable outcomes that would change your mind about the desirability of BI? (No sense in running tests if no one will change their mind). Also, what do people think of the Social Security retirement situation as being a fairly large example of BI, that has been running for the last 80 years on a subset of Americans. Does the fact that they are older invalidate it as an example case in your mind?

karmacondon 11y ago
There have been multiple tests of the ideas behind BI: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome * https://decorrespondent.nl/541/Why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39 https://decorrespondent.nl/541/Why-we-should-give-free-money... * http://freakonomics.com/podcast/fighting-poverty-with-actual-evidence-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/fighting-poverty-with-actual... The problem is that it often isn't possible to falsify or confirm ideas based on limited tests. You can set up a minimum income for one town, or give money with no strings attached to several groups of people, but it won't answer a lot of the long term societal questions. It's like asking if you can test social security or universal healthcare. Those tests might not illuminate problems that could occur on a large scale, 50 years down the line. Sometimes the only way to test something is to do it.
mikeash 11y ago
I don't think you can do small scale experiments, unless you do it using an entire small country. The idea is that you raise taxes too, and naturally you'll have winners and losers. I don't think the losers (wealthier people) will tolerate being forced into the program while others are left out of it. If you let people choose, then only the winners (poorer people) will choose to participate, which will deeply distort the results. If you can do such an experiment (by, for example, instituting BI in a small country) then there are certainly outcomes that would indicate BI isn't feasible. The big questions are whether people in a BI scheme will continue to work, and whether the higher taxes needed to pay for it will kill the economy. If everybody quits their jobs and the taxes strangle the economy then that indicates BI isn't feasible. If everybody keeps working and the economy proceeds as usual then that indicates it is. I don't think Social Security is a useful example precisely because it's aimed at retirees. You don't get much useful information about people's willingness to continue working when you target it at people who have retired. The tax rates needed to support it also look artificially low because the SS tax base is much younger than the SS recipients, and population growth means the former group is disproportionately large. Finally, it doesn't really look much like a BI scheme, because what you get out of SS is based on what you paid in, it's not at all universal.

anu7df 11y ago

I am inclined to think all this is posturing. UBI has the potential to reduce the friction involved in changing jobs. This alone makes it unpalatable to the corporations. When corporations don't want this, they will lobby and scare people till UBI becomes contentious. I can already see the ads... Booming voice narrator " UBI is tax on the small business. Say no to UBI"

nugget 11y ago

Serious question for folks here - do you believe we can successfully institute a meaningful basic income in the US with the current immigration policies? How would policies have to change given the increased incentives from UBI?

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
Serious answer: I don't think we can institute basic income with the current immigration policies without rioting in the streets.

thisislame 11y ago

The powerful political force behind minimum income is the rentier class who will ultimately capture it as rent. Replacing existing programs with "free choice" is a well-worn playbook. See also: pensions vs. 401k plans.

civilian 11y ago
Eer, I don't get it, why wouldn't I want a 401k over a pension? You can't trust pensions. Companies can go bankrupt, and even governments have been going bankrupt and have renegotiated pension plans. I'd much rather slowly tuck away a portion of my own income and have it be labeled as mine, rather than have it be a future debt on some organization's account book.

locopati 11y ago

Honest question - how does UBI address hikes in the cost of basic necessities (food, shelter, clothes) by companies knowing that everyone can afford them?

drabiega 11y ago
With markets. As the distribution of income changes so does the distribution of goods and services produced.
manyoso 11y ago
The UBI can be scaled by the cost of living index which will shelter it from inflation. We have a sovereign money supply for a reason. Let's use it!
- X86BSD 11y ago
  I keep seeing people say use the cost of living index. Do any of you realize what a fraud that is? They have taken out the two most expensive categories people spend money on to survive. Food and energy. And it's been like that for decades. That index is as useless as tits on a tree.
  - manyoso 11y ago
    It can be tied directly to inflation or even to GDP. See details here: https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7#.kz2s8ze9d https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-...
VLM 11y ago
The market won't change too much. Everyone can afford food and shelter and clothes now, in the former 1st world countries. There are places in the world where people can't get food and thus die in the streets, but this is a rounding error here. Therefore not much will change at the bottom end. Prices might drop slightly due to reduced demand because people will occasionally splurge. Note that this won't actually help with many social problems. For example kids who go to school hungry because mom spent todays money on crack will after UBI merely go to school hungry because mom spent todays money plus UBI on crack. Neither the slumlord nor the supermarket will see a penny more. Cultural changes are much harder to make than mere economic changes.

jerelunruh 11y ago

Let's say that currently rent is $1,000 per month, food is $500, and Alice is earning $2,500. Now UBI is implemented and Alice and all fellow citizens receive $1,000 per month. What will keep the market from easing the entry level rent up to $1,500 and food to $1,000 since the money is available? At first glance it seems like we'd just be choosing a different number representing "broke".

danharaj 11y ago
That would be the Marxian claim: wages trend for most workers towards subsistence. Caveat: subsistence is a relative term. I think it's a reasonable question because UBI doesn't change much about the structure of capitalism. And also just like every other welfare program, it will be rolled back inch by inch every time there's a systemic shock and the poors are held to blame.
drabiega 11y ago
Because markets still exist. The change in the distribution of income will necessarily incur a change in the distribution of production of goods and services. You would probably expect the price of some necessities to increase a little, especially in the short term, but it's not like we're anywhere near our capacity to produce food and housing.
manyoso 11y ago
We tie the UBI to the cost of living index.
- notahacker 11y ago
  That makes any potential generalised inflation worse, not better...
twoodfin 11y ago
BI shouldn't be more inflationary in the aggregate than any other government scheme that redistributes income in a comparable way. The only difference would be which goods have more money chasing them. That choice would be made by the market (of net BI recipients after any tax clawback) instead of by politicians & bureaucrats, which has a certain appeal. Currently, if you want access to much redistributed income, you can only use it to eat what USDA allows you to, or live where HUD tells you to. I find that a rather degrading way to treat our fellow citizens.

lintiness 11y ago

"But more QE may not be politically palatable, as it disproportionately benefits the wealthy, hurts pension plans, and may lead to banks simply hording cash." ok, so the author clearly hasn't got a clue how qe works.

ck2 11y ago

Jeez I wish people would quit this. Minimum income means guaranteed maximum prices for things like rent and food that you cannot live without. You think your $500 a month apartment isn't going to become $800 when the landlord knows everyone is getting at least $1000?

bryanlarsen 11y ago
https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7#.chjvf9gk6 https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-...

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

> No, because they would still have Milton Freidman's famous helicopter money drop. Previously, this took the form of quantitative easing. QE was not the same as the "helicopter drop". The helicopter drop (HD) is much closer to basic income (BI), except that HD might be a one-time thing, whereas BI is ongoing. QE is creating money to buy bonds. This raises the price of bonds, and injects money into the system. But where does it inject the money? To everyone? No, only to those who currently hold bonds - that is, to the wealthy, and to financial institutions. HD and BI, by contrast, give the money to everyone. QE didn't do much to solve the problem of inadequate demand. HD and/or BI may do better. They may do it at the price of increased inflation, true. But under the current circumstances, the Fed would welcome a bit more inflation...

shkkmo 11y ago

One big benefit to minimum income that I never heard discussed is the wonderful ability make the minimum wage obsolete. (Since minimum wage is merely an alternative route to achieve minimum income without using direct taxes and that doesn't help those with no job.) Each time we hit a rough patch we could boost the minimum income to increase liquidity, and drop the minimum wage to stimulate job creation. This has the potential to fix some of the inefficiencies of the job market. There are jobs that people enjoy or find fulfilling that don't provide enough 'value' to exist (or only exist in the black/barter market where minimum wage is not enforced). There are also jobs that nobody enjoys or find fulfilling, that should have been automated already, but haven't because we force people to work to support themselves and thus create a glut of cheap labor with the minimum wage as the price floor. As far as to how we pay for minimum income, I love the idea I ran across on HN of directly and progressively taxing capital/assets rather than income.

jakeogh 11y ago

It is inevitable that the threat of withholding 'basic income' will be used to modify behavior. Didn't pay a fine? Didn't do your taxes? Post "radical" comments on the internet? On the no-fly list? On the no-drive list? Don't have a gov-issued InternetID™? No soup for you. How long until China couples it with it's human scoring system?

mikerichards 11y ago
So are you saying that basic income requirements will be very different than welfare is today?

mchahn 11y ago

> A socialists pipe dream, you might say. A common misunderstanding. BI is not socialism. Socialism: A political theory advocating state ownership of industry.

dragonwriter 11y ago
BI is certainly the type of thing many actual.socialists have proposed, and the definition of socialism you post is, while perhaps what made ght be found in a particularly compact general dictionaries, not particularly accurate or complete, even by the standard of general dictionary definitions.
- mchahn 11y ago
  Then post your definition and its source. I just googled six of them and they all matched mine.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Google's is pretty typical of not-unusually-compact general dictionary definitions, "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Unlike yours, it encompasses regulation (which redistributive taxation is generally recognized as a form of) and the focus is on "the community as a whole" (for which the state may be the tool used, or may not) and not just the "the state" as the focus (which is important, since without that it wouldn't include libertarian socialism.)