6 ms·

> fewer working mothers can find child care, fewer laborers to mow your lawn, fewer nurses, fewer teachers, etc. First of all, even if the people in positions

> fewer working mothers can find child care, fewer laborers to mow your lawn, fewer nurses, fewer teachers, etc. First of all, even if the people in positions like this were only working for sustenance and UBI provides it for them, it doesn't mean some wouldn't want to continue working to make even MORE money. UBI is a baseline, not welfare. If previously a lawn mowing job was only enough for rent and food, maybe now with UBI it'd be enough for rent, food, and the occasional dinner and a movie. Ain't nothing wrong with that. But you're right, at least some people would definitely completely exit the work force. Well, that just means the salaries of the rest would go up. Simple economics. Does that mean that some working families can no longer afford to pay a new immigrant bottom dollar to mow their lawn and instead have to pitch in themselves? Maybe so. Is that so bad. Okay, you say, but what about those working mothers that are barely making enough money to be able to afford the most basic child care while they make their income? Good news - UBI also helps THEM too so either they no longer need to work if all they're doing is getting by to keep a roof over the child's head, or they have enough extra to pay for the increase in child care. I'm not saying "don't worry about, it'll all sort itself out". This is a very complex policy with millions of consequences to our societies - intended and unintended. A lot of research must be done, and also experimentation. But to say that with UBI everyone would be worse off is ridiculous bordering on propagandistic.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
But you're right, at least some people would definitely completely exit the work force. Well, that just means the salaries of the rest would go up. Simple economics. Does that mean that some working families can no longer afford to pay a new immigrant bottom dollar to mow their lawn and instead have to pitch in themselves? Maybe so. Is that so bad. Yes, it's bad because now we are all poorer. We have fewer goods and services to go around. The fact that salaries (paper) go up doesn't change this fact. Okay, you say, but what about those working mothers that are barely making enough money to be able to afford the most basic child care... I'm referring to highly productive women who should be designing self driving cars, automating business processes, and other such valuable things. Instead they are stuck at home changing diapers. We, as a society, lose the value of their output.
- pjc50 11y ago
  If someone's that highly productive they'll still be able to earn enough that going out to work would make economic sense. Or they could have the fathers change the diapers.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    If someone's that highly productive they'll still be able to earn enough that going out to work would make economic sense. This is absolutely true in a free market with no labor distortions (BI, tax, etc). However, we already live in a world with distortions (taxes, welfare, regulations) that drive a wedge between economically optimal and actual choices. How would adding an even bigger wedge help? Also, due to women's sexual choices, most likely the father is also highly productive. So your "fathers change the diapers" is not really a viable solution - it just means you lose his output rather than hers.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      I wonder how big of a basic income you could pay out while keeping the distortion from the basic income about the same size as the distortion from the replaced programs. Later: Which is not intended as more than hand-wavy thinking out loud. Regardless of the impact, a basic income is a political pipe dream in the US. More immediate improvements in quality of life might come from better aligning incentives in the healthcare system and fixing cliffs in existing programs.
    - Al-Khwarizmi 11y ago
      Actually I can't imagine anything closer to the "free market" utopia than a labor market with basic income. The current market is not free because people are forced to offer their services if they don't want to starve. That's a huge distortion that you would remove with basic income.
      - wooter 11y ago
        you really don't understand what a free market is then. i would suggest any econ 101 book
bane 11y ago
Your arguments are interesting, but they hold only in systems with artificial inflation controls. UBI increases the amount of money in the economy, which has the same effect as simply printing more, thus the value (scarcity) of the money decreases. A poor mother without UBI will be a poor mother with UBI because costs will simply go up, something you acknowledge. As costs for services go up, costs of products go up as well. For example, if I'm in the beer business, and the cost for me to bottle a single beer is $.10 per bottle on my assembly line. If labor costs increase under UBI to double that ($.20/per bottle) (because cheap labor is now harder to find), I must increase my sale price by at least the same or go out of business. Now somebody buying my beer has to pay $.60 more per six-pack, potentially wiping out that fraction of new income UBI was providing them. The government could come in and say "the price of beer may not increase at all" and set some kind of price control. So now I need to cut $.60 of cost somewhere else in my product. But wait, it gets worse! Bottling isn't the only cost for me to make and sell my beer. - Grain harvest is more expensive - increasing my cost - Transport costs are more expensive - increasing my cost - Blank bottles are more expensive - increasing my cost - Brewing is more expensive - increasing my cost and so on... So to prevent inflation I have to cut costs everywhere else. Cheaper glass, worse grain quality, worse brewing methods, worse water supply, and so on. If I can't balance the cost equation I simply go out of business, decreasing the supply of products in the economy and increasing unemployment. In effect, nobody gets paid more because everybody gets paid more, which drives up prices, which is the definition of inflation. If inflation is artificially capped by price controls, then product quality either goes down, or I go out of business. It's basic economics.
- jhall1468 11y ago
  Your entire theory is based on the idea that the labor market will decrease AND it will decrease so substantially that all markets will have to increase prices to a 1:1 ratio with the new UBI. Sounds more like fantasy than economics.
  - bane 11y ago
    Why wouldn't labor markets decrease? Isn't that the principle idea floating by UBI advocates entirely throughout this thread? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619730 > AND it will decrease so substantially that all markets will have to increase prices to a 1:1 ratio with the new UBI. No, all money will devalue with the increase in supply and increase in labor costs. That's pretty basic economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

yummyfajitas 11y ago

But you're right, at least some people would definitely completely exit the work force. Well, that just means the salaries of the rest would go up. Simple economics. Does that mean that some working families can no longer afford to pay a new immigrant bottom dollar to mow their lawn and instead have to pitch in themselves? Maybe so. Is that so bad. Yes, it's bad because now we are all poorer. We have fewer goods and services to go around. The fact that salaries (paper) go up doesn't change this fact. Okay, you say, but what about those working mothers that are barely making enough money to be able to afford the most basic child care... I'm referring to highly productive women who should be designing self driving cars, automating business processes, and other such valuable things. Instead they are stuck at home changing diapers. We, as a society, lose the value of their output.

pjc50 11y ago
If someone's that highly productive they'll still be able to earn enough that going out to work would make economic sense. Or they could have the fathers change the diapers.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  If someone's that highly productive they'll still be able to earn enough that going out to work would make economic sense. This is absolutely true in a free market with no labor distortions (BI, tax, etc). However, we already live in a world with distortions (taxes, welfare, regulations) that drive a wedge between economically optimal and actual choices. How would adding an even bigger wedge help? Also, due to women's sexual choices, most likely the father is also highly productive. So your "fathers change the diapers" is not really a viable solution - it just means you lose his output rather than hers.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    I wonder how big of a basic income you could pay out while keeping the distortion from the basic income about the same size as the distortion from the replaced programs. Later: Which is not intended as more than hand-wavy thinking out loud. Regardless of the impact, a basic income is a political pipe dream in the US. More immediate improvements in quality of life might come from better aligning incentives in the healthcare system and fixing cliffs in existing programs.
  - Al-Khwarizmi 11y ago
    Actually I can't imagine anything closer to the "free market" utopia than a labor market with basic income. The current market is not free because people are forced to offer their services if they don't want to starve. That's a huge distortion that you would remove with basic income.
    - wooter 11y ago
      you really don't understand what a free market is then. i would suggest any econ 101 book

bane 11y ago

Your arguments are interesting, but they hold only in systems with artificial inflation controls. UBI increases the amount of money in the economy, which has the same effect as simply printing more, thus the value (scarcity) of the money decreases. A poor mother without UBI will be a poor mother with UBI because costs will simply go up, something you acknowledge. As costs for services go up, costs of products go up as well. For example, if I'm in the beer business, and the cost for me to bottle a single beer is $.10 per bottle on my assembly line. If labor costs increase under UBI to double that ($.20/per bottle) (because cheap labor is now harder to find), I must increase my sale price by at least the same or go out of business. Now somebody buying my beer has to pay $.60 more per six-pack, potentially wiping out that fraction of new income UBI was providing them. The government could come in and say "the price of beer may not increase at all" and set some kind of price control. So now I need to cut $.60 of cost somewhere else in my product. But wait, it gets worse! Bottling isn't the only cost for me to make and sell my beer. - Grain harvest is more expensive - increasing my cost - Transport costs are more expensive - increasing my cost - Blank bottles are more expensive - increasing my cost - Brewing is more expensive - increasing my cost and so on... So to prevent inflation I have to cut costs everywhere else. Cheaper glass, worse grain quality, worse brewing methods, worse water supply, and so on. If I can't balance the cost equation I simply go out of business, decreasing the supply of products in the economy and increasing unemployment. In effect, nobody gets paid more because everybody gets paid more, which drives up prices, which is the definition of inflation. If inflation is artificially capped by price controls, then product quality either goes down, or I go out of business. It's basic economics.

jhall1468 11y ago
Your entire theory is based on the idea that the labor market will decrease AND it will decrease so substantially that all markets will have to increase prices to a 1:1 ratio with the new UBI. Sounds more like fantasy than economics.
- bane 11y ago
  Why wouldn't labor markets decrease? Isn't that the principle idea floating by UBI advocates entirely throughout this thread? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619730 > AND it will decrease so substantially that all markets will have to increase prices to a 1:1 ratio with the new UBI. No, all money will devalue with the increase in supply and increase in labor costs. That's pretty basic economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation