12 ms·

Universal Basic Income

• inopinatus 10y ago
  My beef with UBI is that it is seen as a fiscal policy to replace welfare (and therefore funded by tax), rather than an alternative distribution of money created by monetary policy.
• onion2k 10y ago
  If you pick a bunch of people who all think the same way it's not very surprising when a majority takes one particular side in a debate. For example, in another survey of the same group of experts, 98% agreed that the USA is better off after NAFTA[1]. That isn't to suggest they're wrong, but is does indicate that this might be a group of people who aren't very diverse in their opinions. [1] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade
• nerdponx 10y ago
  A shame that more didn't provide even a one-sentence note.
  • kondor6c 10y ago
    I think some of the votes left comments.
• ThomPete 10y ago
  I would love to see on what basis. Basic income might or might not work but current economic models have no way of calculating that as they arent able to take externalities into account such as exponential growth of technological progress.
• Pica_soO 10y ago
  If there is no ladder to power to climb, what to do with all the unemployed climbers, who paid those economists so well?
• IshKebab 10y ago
  Yeah but since when did economists know anything about the real economy? The fact that it is 60% and not 10% or 90% illustrates that.
• ZenoArrow 10y ago
  It seems a number of the responses were based on the specific wording of the question ($13000 per year, no other complementary reforms such as abolishing medical insurance industry mentioned).
• K0nserv 10y ago
  It seems like an impossible challenge to tackle the downsides of automation and loss of low skilled jobs without basic income. I can't imagine how society is supposed to continue to function for the people displaced by large scale automation without something like basic income.
  • bicubic 10y ago
    Basic income isn't some magical panacea. It does exactly the same thing as social security/welfare, but slightly more efficiently. It has the same problem: the rich aren't going to give up money to make it work. Would you accept a 10% tax hike on your income? Because that's roughly what it would take to make basic income provide anything resembling a quality of life to the incoming jobless class.
    • FussyZeus 10y ago
      Would I give up 10% of my income to prevent riots and a rural/urban civil war? Yes, yes I would and frankly if you wouldn't you're being penny wise and pound foolish. You can't just write off the entire blue collar class as they slide into starvation and go "well that's unfortunate," those are people, and more specifically people a lot more used to surviving off the grid than you are. We need them a lot more than they need us.
      • sheeshkebab 10y ago
        ^ , yes that's the main reason why rich/richer will tolerate. People without money will tolerate it for a few years, but since it's 99% of Population it will eventually all explode and either slide into chaos, or some war. Don't need to look further than czarist Russia/Soviet Union to see what happens. 10/20% tax hike is peanuts in comparison to getting you and your family shot.
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
      • 10y ago
• valarauca1 10y ago
  60% of economists disagreed that market conditions were correct in 2008 for a global recession. Why people continue to put so much stock in economists? The only other profession I know of that is proven wrong so consistently but remain doggedly dedicated are religious institutions.
• known 10y ago
  Because they're living in a world devoid from reality;
• imagist 10y ago
  You don't need economists to disprove basic income works, you need evidence. All the evidence I've seen points to it working well. A lot of economists work in finance, the industry that benefits the most from our financial system staying the way it is.
  • dilemma 10y ago
    What evidence is it that you've seen?
    • pakitan 10y ago
      I'm gonna guess that the "evidence" is programs where limited number of poor people were given money, no strings attached. I think that was some program/study in Africa. And the results were good but that has nothing to do with universal basic income and calling this "evidence" is akin to approving a drug for in vivo use, based on in vitro studies.
      • imagist 10y ago
        Or, you could use Google instead of guessing and using your wrong guesses to justify a straw man argument. Here's a good place to start: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots
        • pakitan 10y ago
          Maybe I should have but even if I did, that wouldn't have changed my opinion and the in vitro/in vivo analogy still stands. The described pilots are limited in scope and period or have strings attached. This has nothing to do with UBI. It's easy to spend a $100M grant, give some money to the poor and pretend like you can make conclusions on the effect of UBI on a whole country.
          • imagist 10y ago
            Methinks that if the standard of evidence you require is an unlimited-length study of an entire nation, you may be seeing the bar of evidence too high because of presuppositions. There are plenty of things you believe based on much smaller studies.
• tpetricek 10y ago
  The title is misleading in two ways. First, 60% does not sound like too much (makes you think that 40% agree) until you see that only 2% actually agree with it. Second, the question is not about UBI in general, but about a very specific proposal: "[U]niversal basic income of $13,000 a year — financed by eliminating all transfer programs (including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing subsidies, household welfare payments, and farm and corporate subsidies)".
  • devoply 10y ago
    Well you knew that they would figure out a way of going after Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid somehow. They'll now sell it as universal basic income, brilliant. Grab yourself some champagne, the elites are going to celebrate.
    • snrplfth 10y ago
      So 60% of economists disagree, and only 2% agree, with a proposal that would eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc, and this is somehow them "going after" these programs? What are you talking about? They are very broadly against this proposal!
      • devoply 10y ago
        I am with the pitchfork committee.
        • snrplfth 10y ago
          What does that even mean?
  • mike-cardwell 10y ago
    The 60% is irrelevant. I could equally look at the list of economists that they asked and make the ridiculous statement that "17% of economists are women"
• known 10y ago
  Because In India, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility != https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility
• Xylakant 10y ago
  The headline here is an unfair summary of the actual question asked. The question asked lays out a very specific proposal and quite some comments indicate that the person disagrees because the sum proposed does not adequately cover the services cut - which is quite contrary to a disagreement with UBI in principle. (e.g.: Eric Maskin: "A minimum income makes sense, but not at the cost of eliminating Social Security and Meidcare.")
• flippyhead 10y ago
  It sure seams like 60% of economists missed the Great Recession, too
• PDoyle 10y ago
  This Hacker News headline is bogus. The linked article doesn't prove that at all. This is click-bait. A simplistic one-paragraph $13,000 UBI proposal was made, and the question was whether it was better than the status quo. Many of the economists chose "disagree" because they felt the details of the UBI proposal were unworkable; not because they disagree with the idea of UBI. Here are some of the comments from those who disagree: "And the children get nothing? The basic idea is sound but too simplistic as stated." "A minimum income makes sense, but not at the cost of eliminating Social Security and Meidcare." "John Cochrane proposes variants that would be better." "13K is inadequate for anyone with no other income." "The simplicity is attractive, but deceptive. Coupled with universal health care & tax reform it could work. but we are far from that."
• grzm 10y ago
  From June 2016. "Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel" Previously posted on HN with 120 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12009562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12009562
• mike-cardwell 10y ago
  If you're an economist or work in finance and you are asked this question, your answer is almost certainly going to be based on what you think will happen to the economy. If you think that the economy will get worse, or improve at a slower rate, you will automatically assume that means it should not be introduced. Maybe. Just maybe. Something which makes the economy worse, might also be a good thing to do.
• neals 10y ago
  I've been thinking there should be a 'second' (?) currency. Basic income would be paid in this currency and you can buy certain stuff with it. Food, rent, gas etc. Then we keep our current currencies right next to it. You can buy the same stuff but also other 'luxury goods' (or find a better nicer name for it) I know that the Dutch government already makes this distingsion where we have 6% tax on food, art, medicine (and other stuff) and 21% tax on the rest. Since the distingsions is there and recognized, we can utilize it for other purpuses.
  • snrplfth 10y ago
    Well, they have that, as "food stamps". But of course it gets arbitraged often by people buying storable commodity goods (like soda or detergent) with it, and selling those things at a discount.
  • szemet 10y ago
    1. Then you may limit the economical benefit of the whole thing: people may not just consume using free money but may use it to small investments, produce something etc... Creative usage of money requires flexibility. 2. Secondary market will come: You either criminalize it then it will cost a lot, or not and you just give part of the money to the money changers for a service that could have been easily avoided.
  • dagw 10y ago
    That would remove much of the point. One of the basic premises of the idea is that individuals are better at knowing how to maximise their utility than the government. Will some people just use the money for beer and video games? Sure. But some people might also use the money in a really creative, positive, way that you and I haven't thought of. I'm willing to accept the former in the hope of increasing the chance of the latter.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• jbmorgado 10y ago
  Well, economists only get things right 50% of the time (i.e. their predictions are purely aleatory), so this doesn't really mean much. Here is a very interesting article about all those major failed recent predictions by economists: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html...
• pg314 10y ago
  The economists are responding to one very specific version of UBI: Granting every American citizen over 21-years old a universal basic income of $13,000 a year — financed by eliminating all transfer programs (including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing subsidies, household welfare payments, and farm and corporate subsidies) — would be a better policy than the status quo. E.g. William Nordhaus disagrees as follows: And the children get nothing? The basic idea is sound but too simplistic as stated. Some of the comments seem quite shallow too. E.g. Oliver Hart (Nobel prize laureate) says: "Bill Gates would get 13K, which is crazy". You might object to giving the 1% $13K on moral grounds (but they profit from e.g. free infrastructure too, that is no problem?), but if the wastage is only 1%, it would compare very favorably with many other programs.
  • pakitan 10y ago
    The Bill Gates comment sounds shallow because Bill Gates getting $13K is certainly not the problem. The problem is that this version of UBI essentially takes money from poor folks and gives it to middle class, well-off people. Someone who was getting, say, $2K/month disability benefits, would get $1000 under this UBI version. While a SV programmer would get additional $1000/month out of nowhere. How is that making the society function better?
• keredson 10y ago
  some math on how much UBI would cost in america: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zat6b6_8vYYBo4rVSwqNvhAZBmqQFEisqoRUX9EXSIg/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zat6b6_8vYYBo4rVSwqN... try editing the "UBI Benefit" and "UBI Tax Rate" to see the total budget effects. * assumes no money from medicare, medicaid or SS, just existing welfare benefits.
• BjoernKW 10y ago
  Some of their comments show a deplorable lack of vision: > "Bill Gates would get 13K, which is crazy. Raising taxes is costly and so redistribution should be targeted to those who need help most." People like Bill Gates without a doubt would have to be taxed more (amounting to much more than 13k) for this to work. The current system works by redistributing and targeting those who supposedly need help most. As of now, it works somewhat ok for the most part but it's tremendously wasteful and promotes wrong incentives. A basic income can reduce that waste and puts everyone on an equal footing. > "Total health expenses and risk will remain high for individuals. It might also shift the norm whether to work. Work = being part of society" > "Lots of conflicting incentives that can discourage work in the existing rules." Because work is an end to itself? Opinions like these seem to be founded in Puritan ethics (work as penance in this life) rather than economic reasoning. If human work doesn't necessarily create value anymore what's the point in continuing to work by the current rules from an economic perspective? > "What about e.g. national defense?" Sure. Everything's up for discussion. Save for sacred national defence. > "A minimum income makes sense, but not at the cost of eliminating Social Security and Meidcare." > "This is a dumb question. We are not going to eliminate Social Security and Medicare etc." Why is that exactly? Are we that stuck in ideology that as a society we can't seem to think beyond concepts that date back to the first Industrial Revolution anymore?
  • icebraining 10y ago
    Regarding "People like Bill Gates without a doubt would have to be taxed more", the problem is that the question doesn't include those taxes - i.e., it's the proposal that is shortsighted, not the voters. They can't invent other stuff out of the blue to justify their vote, otherwise each person would be effectively voting on a different question.
• swalsh 10y ago
  The necessity for something like a universal basic income is pretty obvious to me. However I wonder, as it expands if politics will change in a very negative way. Let's say distribution is an even division between the entire population. If the distribution is low, the obvious solution soon becomes "reduce population". The specifics of that can be pretty gnarly, even if it's a simple "attrition" policy. My imagination for what's possible goes to dark places. I wonder "who" will make the policies, and I fear the power structures will change in very negative ways. I can see reactions to power structures changing to change to a blockchain type system ran by algorithms... but that has equally dystopian ramifications. Though its defiantly a rosy picture, the old west I think appeals to a lot of people like me because old world capitalism allows for independence. As we scale society we're giving a way that independence for equality and comfort. The problem is there are always inherit problems in every system, and someone finds a way to exploit them.
• VA3FXP 10y ago
  It seems to me that the only thing that a universal basic income will do is make corporations richer. If you "double" the income of people living at or below the poverty line, you do not double their buying power. Mile that cost $2/L will now cost $4/L, rent will skyrocket, because more "welfare" will be available. I wholly support the concept of UBI. But it can ONLY work if we restrict how much corporations can charge. Some things that would help in that regard: restrict the $ divide between the highest paid and lowest paid positions in a corporation.
  • Touche 10y ago
    Do people really not see that all of this central planning stuff is just economic whack-a-mole? So what happens to the middle class families that are looking to buy their first home when their taxes increase by 10%. If the household income is $150k, that 1000/month basic income check is going to be less than what is taken in the tax increase. Looks like that family can't buy that house now. One tiny example, but central planning has a million trickle effects that have to be compensated for. It's too much to try and balance and get right.
• xbmcuser 10y ago
  The more truthful statement would be economists disagree with abolishing social security and Medicare