27 ms·
Why we should all have a basic income
- omilu 10y ago>>>Basic income guarantees you a monthly starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life If the poverty line stayed constant, basic income is a no-brainer. But basic income makes the cost of goods rise. Demand for goods increases, but supply diminishes. Nobody will do the crap jobs without higher pay, raising the price of everything. Basic income is impossible.
- Tepix 10y agoWhat about machines doing most of the jobs so there are only a few jobs left? The value the machines generate would be enough to generate the basic income. Why is it impossible?
- omilu 10y agoIf machines could be doing most of the jobs, they would be doing them regardless of basic income.
- thephyber 10y agoMachines cost money to develop and buy. They will only replace a class of worker/task once the value exists. It's very expensive to develop a machine that can replace sewing workers (DARPA is working on one because the US military has a need for it). It hasn't yet created any value because fabric is ridiculously complicated for robots but comparatively very easy for humans to manipulate). So far, the sewing robot is neither very useful nor very valuable (since it is still orders of magnitudes more expensive than fabric workers). If low-paying work is less desirable than it is now, companies will have to deal with the game theory reactions of how consumers react to there being a shortage of fast food workers, bus boys, valets, etc. There is a certain amount of slack that consumers will absorb, either in resources (time, money, effort) expended. IKEA makes you bus your own tables like a cafeteria. I imagine if bus boys and fast food workers suddenly became more rare / expensive, companies would ask their customers to inconvenience themselves to maintain their profit margins / economic viability.
- lisivka 10y agoSo, I, programmer, will be forced to work 12 hours per day to keep robots firmware up to date, while everybody else will enjoy free ride? Sorry, it will not work: I will chose free ride too. Why not just decrease number of working hours to say 2 per day, but for everybody, instead?
- Dolores12 10y agoIf basic income is good enough for you, you may stop working. Some people need more than basic income.
- aianus 10y ago> Sorry, it will not work: I will chose free ride too. Maybe you would, but I think most people would rather have a job and be fabulously wealthy relative to those surviving on UBI alone. See: all the people who work 60h a week in SF making $200k instead of chilling at a bank working 35h for $80k.
- lisivka 10y agoPolitics will tell people that they will raise basic income to win election. To raise income, they will raise taxes, so I will work 80h for $20K instead of $200K. It's not a joke: post-USSR countries already have exactly this problem.
- aianus 10y agoI don't think any countries have successfully automated most of their economies yet so it's apples and oranges.
- snarf21 10y agoI think that is what they meant. When machines make all things so that they are basically free, then it might work. Until then, doing UBI would cause supply shortages and higher prices.
- cocoa19 10y agoIt's difficult with a free market. If income goes up for everyone, people can spend more on basic necessities. Robot owners will make prices higher to maximize profit. A few solutions: 1)Have the government set prices for basic necessities. 2)The government owns companies that produce basic necessities. 3)Replace capitalism. All the solutions above have its drawbacks.
- ragebol 10y agoBut those increasing prices for robot labor are (partially) fed into the basic income, so UBI receivers will have more to spend. There is a cycle and how quickly it cycles will be determined by how quick the various parts move. Not all robot owners will increase their prices just as fast and people will not buy from the overtly expensive sellers. Similar to the economic cycle we already have. I certainly don't have an economics degree though.
- maxerickson 10y agoIf we are literally at 100% robot labor, a basic income could be a resource dividend. Basically, the argument for really strong property rights is that it encourages utilization of resources (and thus makes them broadly available to the economy). With 100% robot labor, utilization of a resource is purely a political decision. The idea that we should give outsize rewards to historical incumbents for their historical incumbency becomes sort of silly.
- nickthemagicman 10y agoCapitalism is going away, no matter what, once we have massive unemployment due to automation. You think people are just going to accept starvation? Shit will get real, real fast. And most people aren't as articulate or reasonable as the people on this site. There will be massive violence. A better way to look at UBI is that it's not about giving poor people money. Its about keeping the fabric of society together and preventing revolutions once automation hits fully.
- tomp 10y agoWhen robots can produce most of the necessary life goods (food, energy, clothing and other manufacturing, medicine), one of the following will happen: (1) robots will be more expensive than humans, and nothing will change (unlikely), (2) there will be a monopoly on robot labour, resulting in an increase of inequality and eventually war (semi-likely), (3) there will be a competition on robot labour, resulting in a sharp fall of prices for basic goods (likely), (4) governments buying (some) robot labour and offering the goods to citizens for free (likely).
- ramshorns 10y ago(3) and (4) would be nice, but (2) can happen with an oligopoly as well as with a monopoly. Working machines are already owned or controlled by a small number of companies.
- jganetsk 10y agoClaims are misleading, wrong, and unsupported. > Demand for goods increases. Citation needed. Demand for some goods will possibly decrease: like payday loans or bankruptcy law. Demand for luxury goods won't change at all: yachts, private jets. But even the demand for Big Macs probably won't change all that much. Apply the same exercise to a bunch of other sundry cases: buying a house, life-saving medication, buying a smartphone. You will quickly realize that you cannot categorically state that "demand for goods increases". And more precisely, it is almost impossible to demonstrate that demand will increase the same amount for all kinds of goods. You really need to investigate how much demand will increase for each particular kind of good. > Supply diminishes. Citation needed. One thing for which supply will likely diminish: consumer debt assets. Since presumably the introduction of basic income will lead to a decrease in consumer debt. But "goods" in general? What basis do you have for saying this? > Nobody will do the crap jobs without higher pay, raising the price of everything. Citation needed. Business owners are very interested in replacing crap jobs with automation. Also, in general, the crappiest jobs today are done by illegal immigrants, who presumably wouldn't be receiving basic income in the future.
- DougN7 10y agoMore people buying stuff increases demand - econ 101. If more people aren't buying stuff, why bother giving them the money? Of course prices will rise. The only way this isn't equivalent to the government printing money is the money comes out some rich people/company's savings accounts where it wasn't being spent anyway.
- jbmorgado 10y agoWe are taking about "basic" needs here. All your argument then must imply that UBI or NOT UBI, "basic needs" must be denied to part of the population or else they get too expensive. And as almost all will agree, that's not only logically wrong, it's also morally wrong.
- srssays 10y agoEverybody understands that UBI is a solution to meeting "basic" needs, the contentious part is the "universal". I don't need basic income. If I received free money that I don't need, I might decide to double my cheese consumption. If many people like me do this, then the price of cheese will go up, hurting poor people.
- Qantourisc 10y agoMany civilized countries have some form of basic income, but not directly. As soon as we are supporting people, rent, food, we are providing some sort of basic income. An income that is probably to low, which they can get away with because it's not expressed in €.
- amelius 10y agoIt would certainly be nice if startups were ramen-profitable by default :)
- mjolk 10y agoDisagree. I've tried some really bad ideas that rightfully died very quickly. The world doesn't need more junk that no one needs or wants, whether that be plastic or digital.
- anonfunction 10y agoThat's a really interesting thought. I could imagine the rate of innovation would speed up quite a lot.
- Tepix 10y agoI'm wondering what effect good virtual reality with a Metaverse as described in Snowcrash and Ready Player One will have on society. There is a potential that a large percentage of people will be happy with their virtual life even if they are poor in real life (as soon as the virtual reality is good enough to spend pretty much all of your time there).
- rgbrgb 10y agoWe're already seeing this effect, no goggles necessary: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-video-games-jobs-emploment-20160923-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-video-games-jobs-e... "Happiness has gone up for this group, despite employment percentages having fallen"
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- prodmerc 10y agoIf everyone gets $1000 every month guaranteed for "basic needs", the prices for those basic needs will increase accordingly. And independently. So you'll end up spending that $1k on either housing, bills or food. So you will still need a job if you want all three of those things, not sit around and contemplate what you should do with your life. It's sort of like how the ACA raised the overall price of insurance. Giving money/help selectively to those who need it right now (and can prove it, i.e. no job but looking for one) is still better than UBI. Prove me wrong.
- bostonpete 10y agoA UBI would end up selectively helping those who need it and not putting money in the pocket of those who don't (in general). The UBI would have to be paid by taxes -- more than $1000 per month would come from those who are well off and less than $1000 per month would come from those in need. Your theory that the cost of food would go up if people had more money is out of whack.
- prodmerc 10y agoI mean Universal Basic Income, the system that people rave about where everyone gets this magical problem solving basic income.
- bostonpete 10y agoYes -- universal basic income would be paid by taxes.
- jbmorgado 10y agoWhat you just advocated there, is that "basic needs" must be denied to part of population in order to make them cheaper to the other part. That's both economical and morally wrong.
- prodmerc 10y agoPeople with jobs have income for the basic needs. Those without jobs get state assistance for the basic needs. No need to give everyone a basic income.
- err4nt 10y agoThis article seems really out of touch, and anybody mentioning the 'UBI' experiment in Manitoba Canada as a success or in a positive light I can hardly trust about the experiments I haven't read about. When we Canadians did an experiment it failed!
- skybrian 10y agoIf it's a failure, this isn't widely known. Links?
- err4nt 10y agoThis article seems really out of touch, and anybody mentioning the 'UBI' experiment in Manitoba Canada as a success or in a positive light I can hardly trust about the experiments I haven't read about. When we Canadians did an experiment it failed!
- programmarchy 10y agoUBI is attempting to cloak itself in free market rhetoric, but it's bullshit. Yes it may "incentivize" some individuals to work, but only by disincentivizing others. It takes money from top wealth producers, discouraging their labor, and gives it to people who aren't producing as much wealth, effectively subsidizing unproductive work. This will make everyone poorer in the long run. The struggling artist meme is an appeal to emotion. The struggling artists and entrepreneurs are struggling for a reason -- the market does not want their goods or services! They should fail as quickly as possible, not continue to drag on producing things people don't want. I'll concede that the welfare state has perverse incentives which trap people in poverty, but there are better ways to address it other than doubling down on the mother of all wealth redistribution schemes.
- _delirium 10y ago> This will make everyone poorer in the long run. I think that's unlikely, though it depends on a lot of factors (UBI is a pretty general concept, and the specific implementation and numbers matter). It may reduce aggregate GDP, but that's not the same as making everyone poorer, since distribution matters when determining that. If, to take an exaggerated example, the top 10% of earners have their income multiplied by 10x and everyone else's goes down by 5%, "everyone has gotten richer" according to some kind of aggregate metric, but in reality 90% of actual people have gotten poorer. Most economists no longer believe that these kinds of situations are automatically self-correcting through "trickle-down economics", in which just getting out of the way of wealth-creation at the top inevitably lifts all boats.
- jayjay71 10y ago> Most economists no longer believe that these kinds of situations are automatically self-correcting through "trickle-down economics", in which just getting out of the way of wealth-creation at the top inevitably lifts all boats. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but did many economists ever take this idea seriously? I always thought trickle-down economics was just political rhetoric.
- nickthemagicman 10y ago
- omilu 10y agoHere is the same author in 2014 attempting to explain how basic income won't lead to massive inflation: https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7#.ajika83kp* https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-... >>>It would not be new money, just money shifted from one location to another. This means that the value of each dollar has not changed. The dollar itself has only changed hands.* There is no sure fire way to reduce the value of a dollar then to redistribute it to people that didn't work for it. The fact that you have to work for the dollar is the thing that gives the dollar value.
- jganetsk 10y ago> There is no sure fire way to reduce the value of a dollar then to redistribute it to people that didn't work for it. The fact that you have to work for the dollar is the thing that gives the dollar value. Citation needed. The value of the dollar is actually determined by: 1) Foreign exchange markets 2) Debt markets
- witty_username 10y agoSee Laffer curve. Redistribution will make people work less (i.e. less total output), so assuming the money supply doesn't change, inflation will occur.
- jganetsk 10y agoIs the important part here labor or output? Automation means people working less with output increasing.
- witty_username 10y agoThe Laffer curve deals with output from labor. When you tax someone you reduce the money they get per unit work, i.e. their wage. If the wage is too low they might not find it worth doing the work. If I'm a paid shill/some job and I'm taxed 99%, I might stop shilling because the effort outweighs my salary. Regarding automation, see the lump of labour fallacy. Humans will just switch to tasks that aren't automated (this has always been happening and it's happening now). If humans are not needed at all, then we've reached utopia/post-scarcity society. Humans don't work less because of the hedonistic treadmill. For example, most HNers have enough food and other things to survive which might be considered paradise by people 500 years ago (famines were common back then). Historically, poverty often meant death from starvation. Our standards of living have been constantly going up, so even though there are productivity gains we end up working more. Of course, that's a voluntary choice so I don't see anything wrong with that.
- witty_username 10y agoUBI is inefficient--taxing someone and then giving them money. NIT (negative income tax) makes more sense and can actually have the same effect as UBI depending on the slabs.
- trfgbv 10y agohttp://overweeninggeneralist.blogspot.com/2011/08/universal-basic-income-ubi-vs-negative.html http://overweeninggeneralist.blogspot.com/2011/08/universal-...
- witty_username 10y agoThose are good points, but there are ways to fix that. There's no reason why NIT needs to involve large amounts of paperwork. NIT only involves income, so a person simply needs to give their income (unlike taxes, which are much more complicated). The NIT would presumably have a minimum amount given even if you earn 0$. That amount can be given to everybody can't do the paperwork. Then, the amount remaining above that can be distributed as a NIT. Basically, give UBI to people who can't do the paperwork to cover them. The rest can use NIT. The time lag is not a necessary property of the tax system. The NIT can be done on a monthly basis. Anyways, this is just an implementation issue. Either way they both redistribute money.
- pitaj 10y agoIn my eyes, negative income tax is just a certain implementation of a UBI.
- roldie 10y agoEconTalk has a recent episode on basic income [0]. The guest is against basic income but the debate is interesting. [0] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/01/michael_munger_3.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/01/michael_munger_3.ht...
- thephyber 10y agoMy interpretation of that episode was that the guest was largely _for_ UBI, so long as it replaced many of the current safety net / welfare programs (it is simpler to administer, doesn't require large bureaucracies to verify eligibility, and doesn't dis-incentivize people from getting a job and working their way up as do disability, unemployment insurance, section 8, food stamps, etc). My interpretation was that the host wasn't sold on the idea nor on the low estimated tax increases required to fund a UBI (IIRC the guest stated 3-10% increases in income taxes and the host speculated more like 20+%).
- jarym 10y agoFunny how all the proponents of a Universal 'Basic' Income aren't proposing instead to make every 'Basic' item 'Free'. After all, if you believe their rhetoric, giving someone $500/mo should be the same as giving them free bread, eggs, milk, some clothes and some movie tickets. I wonder why... Maybe, the reality is that over time our 'Basic' needs increase. In certain parts of the world shoes are still considered a luxury whereas in others, Nikes and Adidas are considered 'basic'. 50 years ago car ownership was a luxury even in most 'developed' nations, as were televisions. Now they're considered 'Basic'. The reality is, the people touting UBI as a way forward suffer from having a thoroughly static and isolated view of the world. They fail to see that value creation is what's important, and drives society to further itself. As value creation goes up, the definition of 'basic' increases with it. I'm not for a minute advocating that the current system is anywhere near perfect - the wealthiest in our population are questionable value creators while at the same time there are value creators scraping by in the world so the way we reward people needs a rethink. I don't profess to know how to solve the poverty crisis and I very much want it to be solved as a citizen of the world. What I do know is that the only way to do it will involve reforming education so that future generations are inspired to advance humankind and create value in the process.
- Deregibus 10y ago>Funny how all the proponents of a Universal 'Basic' Income aren't proposing instead to make every 'Basic' item 'Free'. >After all, if you believe their rhetoric, giving someone $500/mo should be the same as giving them free bread, eggs, milk, some clothes and some movie tickets. It's not "funny", it's the core part of basic income that separates it from state-run socialism. Not making a determination about what is or isn't basic is one of the key points. You give a person their $500 each month and let them determine what it should be spent on. What is basic for one person may not be for another.
- jarym 10y agoGo back to 1950s USA where average annual salary was just over $3000 - if I told you back then I'd give you $500 a month - almost twice the average salary where do you think we'd all be now? Would we be even here? Now take your $500 a month and project forward another 50-60 years. What do you think it'll buy you then and why? By picking a monetary amount - be it $50, $500 or $1000 it IS absolutely making a determination about what's basic. And its doing it based on the living standards and cost of living of today. That's a large part of why its so flawed.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nickthemagicman 10y agoCapitalism is going away, no matter what, once we have massive unemployment due to automation. You think people are just going to accept starvation? Shit will get real, real fast. And most people aren't as articulate or reasonable as the people on this site. There will be massive violence. A better way to look at UBI is that it's not about giving poor people money. Its about keeping the fabric of society together and preventing revolutions.
- hacker_9 10y agoAlternatively the government tells the robots to lock up the poor rioters, so the rich can keep spending their money in peace. There will be violence on both sides. Still this is all hypothetical, all we did was make some neural nets be able to classify some images, there is still a ridiculous amount of work to do.
- ythn 10y agoCapitalism is surprisingly adept at evolving. I don't think it's "going away, no matter what". I'm also skeptical of the "automation apocalypse" that everyone is talking about. MY predicition is there is going to be a massive shift in blue collar work such that basic programming will become a trade to deal with the exponentially growing software maintenance problems.
- edblarney 10y ago"Capitalism is going away, no matter what, once we have massive unemployment due to automation" No. 1) The Industrial Revolution saw a considerably greater degree of automation than we are seeing now. 'Single Engines' replaced dozens of workers, some cases 100's. Think 'weaving machine' vs. 'individual weavers'. The 'automation' we have today is mostly 'soft' - do you think MS Word actually replaced 'Secretaries'? Or was it a confluence of things, including the fact that we now have 'Executive Assistants' which do much more than Secretaries ever did. And what happened during the Industrial Revolution? Wages rose! Unemployment never really went down. You know all those 'servants' in 'Downton Abbey' - the ultimately left to get higher paying jobs. I should add - this had also a lot to do with the labour movement. 2) The major source of 'job loss' in Industrialized countries is not 'automation' - it's 'outsourcing' to India and China. 'Automation' has been going on in a very aggressive way for over 200 years - and yet we still have fairly low levels of unemployment. Entire new sectors have developed: entertainment, professions, services. There were 5 channels in 1950 and now 500. There weren't many pro athletes in the 1900's - now their are tons - and massive industries around them. We didn't really provide much in terms of healthcare in 1900 - now maybe 20% of the economy is healthcare. Very few used to go to University, let alone finish highschool - now education is a massive industry. There is always 'work' that can be done so long as we can improve each others lives. So - the question of 'UBI' comes down to how we decided to spread the surpluses. Do we give some surpluses to those who are not directly contributing? Hint: we already do. Especially in socialized countries - we give massive subsidies to non-working people: healthcare, parks, security, all sorts of other services. Power subsidies (electricity is subsidized here in Quebec). We just don't give them spending money. I think UBI is an interesting idea, but a dangerous one as well. I live in Montreal, many of the people in my neighbourhood are 'artists' - photographers, actors - but really they all work full time in services. You can get a 1/2 decent, small but respectable flat around here for $400 a month - and I don't mean grungy. It's entirely possible to live decently off $1K a month (remember healthcare is already paid for by other members of society). I feel that with UBI - my neighbourhood would fall flat - because everyone would quit their service jobs (or work a lot less) - because they only need UBI + a little bit of extra cash - i.e. '1 day work weeks' - I think would be the preferred mode of existence for vast numbers of the young people around here. They would live a 'very low materialism' style of living, and be happy with it. I think a 'means tested' form of UBI (not really 'Universal' ...) instead of welfare would be better. In America - a better idea than UBI might simply be to make sure that everyone has access to healthcare, in a slightly-more-socialized way. I don't mean 'single payer' - but something. Having better healthcare for everyone would put people on a much more equal/fair footing - AND probably be good for the economy directly/indirectly. Solve that problem and you're already a huge step forward in trying to provide for better social outcomes.
- kapauldo 10y agoA better idea is making minimum wage match the poverty line. We already habe UBI for seniors and tbe disabled, and it works great.
- kgwgk 10y agoOr even better, make the minimum wage $150/hour. Why not? Or maybe you are suggesting that it should be lowered? (It's already above the poverty line for an individual in the US.)
- thephyber 10y agoProblem #1: Minimum wage locks some people out of the workforce. If you aren't disabled, but your skills don't rise the value of 2x of the minimum wage (wage + payroll taxes + benefits), then you are locked out of finding any legal work. If you start to raise the minimum wage much higher than it already is, you will start to make some forms or work and some industries economically unfeasible. Problem #2: Disability most definitely does not "work great". If you take disability, you can be charged with a felony for every seeking work again. It is a side-track to poverty for the remainder of your life, despite the fact that you may be re-employable at some time in the future (possibly due to innovations in technology or changes in the workforce). Additionally, despite the name of the program, not everyone who accepts "disability" (SSDI) is incapable of working. After trade deals like NAFTA, there is a structural change in some industries and regions that qualifies workers in that industry (usually ones where the trade deal is expected to offshore jobs) for "disability" even though their body and mind are perfectly capable of working again. It would be better to give them a UBI-like program which doesn't dis-incentivize them to permanently leave the workforce. We have safety nets like "Section 8" (housing vouchers), "Food stamps" (grocery vouchers), unemployment insurance (UBI-like fixed payments), but each of these is a step function. As soon as you get a job that pays above the cut-off range, you lose the benefits and can have a net loss in purchasing power. A UBI to replace these programs is superior because there would no longer be a penalty for finding a job or making above the cut-off.
- mempko 10y agoI think maybe money, as a technology has reached its limitation. UBI is a patch to a broken system.
- dang 10y agoWe changed the URL from https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/why-we-should-all-have-a-basic-income-7177d5b339ec https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/why-we-should-all-ha..., which points to this. Although basic income is obviously a well-worn topic, this article seems a bit more substantive than average. So we'll try downweighting this thread less than we usually do for well-worn topics.
- politician 10y agoIt's good to hear confirmation that you're doing this sort of thing. May I suggest surfacing this drag coefficient to the UI, so that people know what you've done? It looks pretty sleazy when a young thread with high engagement (comments and upvotes) nonetheless slides to the second page.
- dang 10y agoThat's just how HN works. Story rank is determined not only by upvotes and submission time, but by numerous other factors including active moderation. We're unlikely to publish all that because doing so would increase two bad things: attempts to game the site, and meta nitpicking. Those are bad in their own right and eat up the resources we have for making HN better, so it's in the community interest to minimize them. The approach we've taken re transparency on HN is not to make all the data public but rather to answer users' questions about how the site works or what's going on in specific cases. That seems to be the sweet spot.
- nickthemagicman 10y agoDang! That's great!
- RichardHeart 10y agoI wonder what effect an enacted basic income in the USA would have on immigration. UBI is going to be life or death in a vastly automated world, so we mind as well figure out how to solve the side issues of implementation.
- jakeogh 10y agoMerely a way to control people. It's dishonest to pretend that it's for everyone, the first thing that will happen if you wrong the power structure is it will withdraw funding. Not that I am particularly worried, this will never happen in the United States. China on the other hand, I bet they would love to tie this to their human scoring system.
- delinka 10y ago"...if you wrong the power structure is it will withdraw funding." I have the same fear, that this would be a tool used to encourage conformance. If not initially, then in time. Even in the US (but as you say, we're not likely to adopt basic income in the US.) One would hope, however, that this would become a basic right, and not one that can be revoked for any reason whatsoever, even criminal convictions (perhaps especially criminal convictions.)
- pyrophane 10y agoWould not the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment apply here? UBI, once granted to all, could not be taken away from individuals or groups in the way you are suggesting.
- funkyy 10y agoAutomation will not reduce overall jobs same way industrialization did not do that. Automation will create more jobs in services instead. Basic income is crazy socialist dream that was tested in communism already and it failed.
- nine_k 10y agoYou mean, industrialization did not create a crazy amount of jobs on factories?
- pikzen 10y agoAaah, yes, automating the job of 2000 workers on a car construction line will certainly be replaced by 2000 service jobs. And those jobs will not be requiring higher education that these workers don't have, right. Also, basic income is a concept coming straight from liberalism. The comparison to communism isn't even remotely accurate.
- funkyy 10y agoIt was same with industrialisation. All the crying that factories will destroy economies and cause massive unemployment which didn't do. It did a lot of good instead. Well, there was basic income in some communist countries and it failed on a social level.
- AnthonyMouse 10y agoCommunism is not a basic income. Communism is the government telling you what your job is and giving you a minimal amount of resources and prohibiting you from earning a single extra dollar, and your choices are either take it or escape to West Germany. A basic income is the government unconditionally giving you enough money that you don't starve. Then if you want to e.g. own a car or send your kids to college or live in a city, you have to go out and get a job, which you can do however you like.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- spork12 10y agoIt would work for a certain period of time until inflation catches up. You could keep raising the basic income to keep pace, but it would require raising it more every time and sooner than the last time (exponential). Inflation can be quite damaging because not everything inflates at the same rate. For example salaries are pretty slow to inflate compared to the prices for things like gas or food. This is why a mason could afford to buy a car outright on their salary in the 1950s but almost everyone needs an auto loan to buy a car today. You could try to stop inflation using price controls but this almost always leads to supply shortages. For an example look at rent ceilings in NYC, or the way grocery stores functioned in eastern bloc socialist countries. They had plenty of cash and prices were very cheap but there was nothing on the shelves to buy. tl;dr Basic income would just create a new $0 mark.
- 0xfaded 10y agoMy hunch is that costs of services will increase while consumables remain flat. Australia has a complex minimum wage system, but 20 AUD is typical and on the order of 15 USD. The result is that services such house cleaners, laundromats and car detailing are order 3 times expensive as in the US, however produce and imported goods (Australia continues to systematically kill off its domestic manufacturing capability) are more or less comparable with US prices. Maybe its just a SV thing, but having my (share) house maintained by an army of Latinos for a fraction of my income makes me feel incredibly uneasy. The other one that gets me are the car washes along El Camino where white people drink coffee as their cars are tended to by Latinos. Basic income will kill businesses that rely on cheap labour, as suddenly incremental incentive to work will be minimal at $9/hour (why work only to double my anual income?). To restore the incentive wages will also need to rise, and the net result will be more expensive services accessed by a smaller percentage of the highest earners.
- skybrian 10y agoI think that depends on how unpleasant the job is. Doubling your income sounds pretty good, actually. On the margin, basic income gives people a bit more freedom to make their own choices. I think the price for services in Silicon Valley would go up, but I suspect more because people can take basic income with them when moving somewhere cheaper. With the extra money, low wage/low cost places are likely to become more popular.
- vectorpush 10y agoAlmost everyone here seems to be discussing the economic challenges of UBI, but so far I haven't seen much mention of the political challenges. UBI is a completely unworkable concept in the U.S.A and likely many European countries as well. American citizens will be literally shooting eachother in the streets before they accept such a massive wealth redistribution mechanism, and that resistance will be mostly made up of the masses that could benefit from it, to say nothing of the powerful that will leverage the full extent of their influence to prevent their gains from being redistributed.
- jjawssd 10y agoAmericans do not trust that the government has their best interests in mind, ergo Americans do not want to have their money taken away from them to pay for government programs.
- delinka 10y agoAnd, as evidenced by the actions of our Republican and Democratic party legislators, by the NSA and FBI ... the US government does not have my best interests in mind.
- huherto 10y agoThe government doesn't have a single mind. Every agency has different goals and motivations. Sometimes they are even contradictory. We can choose where we want more government involvement and where we don't.
- kwhitefoot 10y agoLike roads, air traffic control, sewers, clean water, etc., etc.?
- briantakita 10y agoYes, these systems that are mismanaged by bureaucrats & politics. It's not like our water is safe & people who wish to manage water on their own property are prosecuted by the state.
- cpursley 10y agoI have a serious question for folks who support UBI: what is stopping you from getting started now and helping your neighbors? Why not just cut out the middle-man (government bureaucracy) and provide someone with a monthly income from your own pocket? This could be accomplished by individuals with high income (like many here), or by voluntarily pooling your money together.
- cpursley 10y agoAnd before downvoting me, this is what ycombinator is trying at a private institutional level: https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income/ https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income/
- empthought 10y agoThat's a research project, not a sustainable program. The putative benefits of UBI would only apply if it successfully takes the place of the "safety net" of programs already enacted.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- valuearb 10y agoThis would be awesome. i'd quit working and rely on others to produce goods and services for me. If I needed extra income I'd just play poker.
- lend000 10y agoI'm glad basic income is getting a lot of discussion, but it's important to realize we are still pretty early in the process of automation taking over more jobs than people can innovate. Technology has been making entire industries/classes of workers obsolete for centuries, and the economy has always adjusted. In this next push, it looks like it will be different because AI/machine labor is so 'general,' but in reality, the pressure it will first exert on physical labor sectors will create more opportunity for a human economy based on social value and services (i.e. waiters in nice restaurants, artists, musicians, writers, inventors, chiropractors, etc.), as well as those requiring a combination of intelligence/education/creativity, like most of HN. There will likely be an increased prevalence of security guards, managers, and techs overseeing machines, and it will force people to take on skills (which they are fully capable of) that do not involve pure manual labor/doing what they're told. And of course, it's a longer time frame between 'pretty general' physical automation and 'sentient super-intelligence' replacing scientists, engineers, business leaders, and of course, the politicians who will never let themselves be replaced. But when we do start to have the impetus for a basic income, say ten years from now, let's make sure it starts off basic, because there will always be jobs of some sort that you can get to supplement your income, and they will probably be increasingly social in value. Not enough to rent out a nice one bedroom apartment in Manhattan, but enough to get by if you're willing to go without nice amenities, get roommates and not live in an expensive downtown area. Until virtually every job can be automated and we are all servants to a mechanical society, there needs to be incentive/reward to working.
- Mendenhall 10y agoBecause what could possibly go wrong with making more people dependent on the government?
- empthought 10y agoSo how do you commute to work in the morning anyway? Stop using public infrastructure and suckling at the taxpayer's teat.
- Mendenhall 10y agoI dont commute to work in the morning, I work from home :). To address what I think is your point there is a difference between a road I pay taxes for and use/can as compared to giving money to an individual that you gain nothing from. Also to me its not about taxes etc, its about the shift it would bring and the ramifications of having the government issue such a huge amount of money.
- empthought 10y agoThe government already issues this amount of money. It's just inefficiently distributed through individual and corporate welfare subsidies. A UBI would replace nearly all of that.
- dietsche 10y agobad idea. totally unworkable. this will create a class of dependent poor people. It will also create a working class who slaves away to provide for those who refuse to work.
- Proven 10y agoNonsense.
- droithomme 10y agoWho is "we"? Who is "all"? Does this include migrants and undocumented aliens who do the dangerous jobs for low pay with no labor protections or civil rights? Or would they be excluded from the basic income? If they are excluded, and have no rights, but continue to perform the dirty jobs while the rest of "us" relax and benefit from their labor, how is that different from the system of chattel plantation slavery?
- imgabe 10y agoSlavery involves no pay and being unable to leave under threat of violence. Undocumented workers are paid and are free to leave. Indeed, many people are actively asking them to leave. I take your point, but it's not slavery. A basic income isn't meant to preclude anyone from working. If it existed and undocumented workers were removed, those jobs would have to pay a wage sufficient to entice someone who doesn't need them for survival, or we'd have to go without those services.
- hncommenter_ 10y agoand what about all the better jobs that will get freed? And, anyway, would the situation be any different for them, than it is now, in case they'll keep doing the low wage jobs? Why don't you switch your job with one of them? Aren't you taking advantage of their low wage labor right now?
- kareldonk 10y agoA basic income wont solve any problems in a sustainable way as long as governments exist: https://blog.kareldonk.com/governments-and-basic-income-why-they-dont-go-together/ https://blog.kareldonk.com/governments-and-basic-income-why-...
- briantakita 10y ago> The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dzink 10y agoDuring Brexit, people in job-starved areas of UK were reported as resentful for receiving handouts. They wanted gainful employment and their dignity back. You could have corporations foot the bill for basic income and people with certain values would still not want it. The image of being a breadwinner is so deeply instilled in some people that for them not being that, triggers mid-life-crisis: a depression, sense of meaningless existence, addiction, etc. Employment's bigger role is not just to provide income, but to keep people's minds busy and balance dopamine and add more meaning in their life. We have to provide solutions for all of the pieces of the puzzle if we want rapid automation.
- ng12 10y agoAnd when they voiced anger about the government accepting immigrants when there already wasn't enough work to go around they got called racist. I think UBI's effect on immigration is an interesting topic and one I don't see discussed in most articles. What does it mean to be a citizen of a country when, statistically speaking, you're a drain on the economy? How does immigration fit into that model? In my mind UBI doesn't require changing how we view work, it requires changing how we view citizenship and statecraft.
- gotofritz 10y ago> And when they voiced anger about the government accepting immigrants when there already wasn't enough work to go around they got called racist. That's because the evidence points at them being racists
- chris_va 10y agoI think your explanation on the racist name calling shows why this is such a difficult topic. There is a incorrect assumption that people often make, without malice, about economics being a zero sum game. It really is not, almost by definition. The more people in an area, usually the more opportunity people have for employment over a long time period, and the higher the economic output. Also, there is a difference between refugees (i.e. people who might otherwise die) and economic immigrants. It's hard to fault someone for their perception that other people might take their jobs, correct or not. It is easier to fault someone for taking the same stance when the alternative for the immigrants is potentially far more catastrophic. Especially when the arguments are more about culture and race than employment.
- lstroud 10y agoPolitically, you would have to need guarantees against double dipping (constitutional amendment outlawing all other forms of distribution - welfare, food stamps). That's the problem with all the ideas like this...maybe they would be better, but you have to get from here to there. The transitions are almost always untenable and more complex than imagined (see healthcare) Would be better to find something incremental.
- thescribe 10y agoIt has been 0 days since hacker news argued about basic income without any new data.
- heycomeoncomeon 10y agoI'm adding to the the discussion cause we have very smart people here with very good assessments on what the implications are for basic income. I had to chime in to clear some of the speculation on the arguments brought forward. I'm not for or against basic income at the moment but I want to make sure we are all on the same page on what inflation is and the basics of economics. Inflation is simply the influx of money that causes the "value" of ALL goods/services to increase. This is due to the increase of the money supply which decreases the value of the currency. I emphasize that it is the value of ALL goods/services not just one or a large number of sectors. When we see prices rise up in goods and services in one area it isn't inflation because it is in one area of the economy. Another misunderstood axiom of economics is that a market is based on finite resources. If goods in one area of the market increase then somewhere else across the economy the value of goods and services decrease. Now the misinterpretation of inflation and price hikes happen due to one variable, time. The time it takes for price hikes in one area to affect another is what gives the perception of inflation. But when the value of groceries significantly increases then I assure you people are going to eat out less. It just takes time for the sectors to affect on one another.
- anonymousiam 10y agoSounds like a great idea. Let's pay everybody in Bitcoin! Who's going to do the mining?
- king07828 10y agoCountry A has pure UBI. Country B has "almost UBI" where, in order to receive payments, the person must have documented proof of 3 hours per week of at least one of: volunteer work, education as a student, or teaching a class. In this scenario, I would expect country B's economy to dominate country A's economy because in order to get your check you have to work with other people (volunteer), make yourself better (student), or make others better (teach).
- king07828 10y agoCountry A has pure UBI. Country B has "almost UBI" where, in order to receive payments, the person must have documented proof of 3 hours per week of at least one of: volunteer work, education as a student, or teaching a class. In this scenario, I would expect country B's economy to dominate country A's economy because in order to get your check you have to work with other people (volunteer), make yourself better (student), or make others better (teach).
- shahbaby 10y ago“How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli 1469 - 1527 Even if UBI was proven to be a net gain to society, implementation is highly unlikely. This is less about technology/economics and more about human nature, which has not changed much over the last 500 years.
- planck01 10y agoThat's right. People can't stand the idea of freeloaders that don't have to do anything and get everything for free, while we are working hard to pay for their stuff. Even if this hardly happens, the thought alone scares and angers the hell out of most people.
- undershirt 10y ago> human nature, which has not changed much over the last 500 years Let's be clear that "human nature" is relatively stable, but the "cultures" that sit atop are much more capricious-- slowly changing in different ways to fit the same human desires.
- tunesmith 10y agoI have such trouble with basic income discussions because it is such an ill-defined term it is basically meaningless. Like here in the US, UBI with social-security/medicare is a massively different thing than UBI instead of social-security/medicare. So massively different that it's just two completely different subjects, arguments, things. They should just be named differently so we know what we're talking about - otherwise you have people agreeing they love it when the actually massively disagree, or other people saying they hate it on grounds other than what was suggested.
- mrmrcoleman 10y agoLots of conversation here but we already know how to deal with this; let's run a test and see what happens. Just like they are doing in Utrecht in the Netherlands. If it looks good we can roll it out a bit more.
- fbreduc 10y agothe biggest problem i see is now i want to raise my prices to get more of that UBI pie
- gdix 10y agoThe first graphic is geniusly deceptive: "See, we take a little bit from everyone, shuffle it around a bit and return it back to everyone. Hooray!" When it reality, the actual result is the red section loses dots which just go blue green and yellow groups.
- notahacker 10y agoI particularly like the way they don't put an earnings scale on the second graph to show that it implies everyone earning more than about $40k per year has less money than before. Now try telling someone on $50k in the Bay Area that their net tax increase is mostly going to go to people not receiving any welfare at the moment, most probably because they don't actually need the money enough to even think of registering as looking for work...
- Koshkin 10y agoYou never know, UBI may turn out to be a good thing: it may result in creating a healthy shortage of the workforce, which may lead to a more efficient economy overall.
- jliptzin 10y agoThis will never happen in the US. You will have to move out of the country to a different country that institutes a UBI if you are looking for something like this (which I think is a good idea)
- Mz 10y agoWhen I was 3 years old, my dad bought a brand new house in a brand new suburb. It was 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths, etc. For its era, it was a very solidly middle class or upper middle class house and he had 3/4 of the price of the house in the bank. The house cost $16k. He had $12k in the bank. It was a LOT of money when I was 3 years old. It is not a lot of money today. A $1000/month sounds like a lot now. But the minute you issue UBI, it will spur inflation and the value of that $1000 will immediately be less than it is now. This is a problem faced by every single welfare or aid program the world over: It takes no time for whatever figures you came up with to be out of date and for your program to not be accomplishing its intended goals. I have written about this before (for example: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/09/it-was-obsolete-before-we-opened.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/09/it-was-obsol...) and I expect to write about this more. The UBI is a bad solution to the problem. We have faced this problem before in the form of the Industrial Revolution and we invented the 40 hour work week. It helped distribute work more fairly. We need similar solutions today. Turning most people into sheeple and charity cases merely because they are not rich is a terrible, terrible idea.
- xvedejas 10y agoI think most proponents of UBI agree that the value should be tied to inflation, updated on a regular schedule (I advocate monthly). This would guarantee that UBI doesn't go "out of date".
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jondubois 10y agoIf I had basic income, I would go back to study, get a PhD in Computer Science Majoring in AI/Machine learning and then I would try to do something meaningful with it. I am tired of doing pseudo-intellectual software 'engineering' tasks - I would like to use my intellect to tackle difficult problems instead of trivial problems like building UI components and managing databases. Unfortunately, I can't afford to go to back to uni right now. I think that there are a lot of people in my position who are desperate for basic income. From a societal point of view, innovation would move quicker if people had more time to invest in themselves. Unfortunately for me, right now, I just have two options if I want to buy myself some time to study: - Hope that one of the startups I work/worked for gets a big exit and that I can cash in and fund my studies. - Wait for retirement age before going back to uni (and hope that my brain still works OK at that age).
- wolfgke 10y agoThe fact that someone is paying you to do these jobs shows that the things you do do have a lot value to someone (your boss, the company's customers etc.). So your existing job is far from being meaningless. Instead of crying for a UBI you should better cry for people not to buy software that does "trivial stuff". If people were willing to spend a lot of money on software that does highly not-trivial stuff, there probably were a large demand for people that are able and willing to work on such things. Markets are a democracy - everybody votes with his wallet.
- jondubois 10y agoIf me and my colleagues were better educated and less stressed on average, we would introduce fewer bugs into the system and we would waste less time debugging issues that should never have existed in the first place. I guess I believe that education has a really good ROI.
- wolfgke 10y ago> I guess I believe that education has a really good ROI. Did you do a back of the napkin estimate for this? You also have to include the tuition fees and the opportunity cost of (probably) not working while you study on the debit side (thus no, i.e. lost, income). On the credit side the increased productivity/better job etc. Have you computed how many years it will take to reduce the computed debt (including opportunity cost)? I have not computed it, but I'd assume that it would take a hellish lot of time to even break even.
- 2noame 10y agoAs the author of this article, I suggest reading this one next if your concern is inflation: https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7 https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-... If you have another question check here: http://www.scottsantens.com/basic-income-faq http://www.scottsantens.com/basic-income-faq
- jondubois 10y agoI'm a big fan of Thomas Piketty's idea of a progressive global tax on wealth. I think that the root cause of a lot of the financial stress that many people are feeling right now is the result of having too many people leeching off of passive income from their investments/wealth (derived from work they did 30 years ago) and not actually contributing anything new to society. These wealthy people have become parasites. Right now, if I build an office building and I rent it out to people; assuming that I manage to stay afloat during the first few years, the passive income that I will later generate from that investment will probably keep coming in for the rest of my life... Even worse than that; when I die, my children would be able to keep getting the free passive income; they could just sit there and consume stuff (make others work for them) without working themselves; without contributing anything new to society. There is a point when you have to stop paying these passive earners. We're already doing it when it comes to patents/copyrights (In many countries, copyrights expire after 70 years or so... Patents generally expire sooner than that) - We need to either extend this notion of 'expiry' to ALL property rights OR at the very least tax that wealth. Why should regular property be treated any differently than intellectual property? Right now, what we have is crony capitalism. If we wanted to have proper capitalism; companies like Ford, GM, Toyota... would all have to pay royalties to the descendants of the people who invented the wheel and also to all the descendants of the people who discovered iron ore, etc... That would be fair - Actually, doing this would probably have the same effect as passive income since probably every human has at least one person in their ancestry who made a major contribution to mankind (why don't they get royalties for that?). When you put it into context, the rules of our current flavor of capitalism just seem ridiculously arbitrary. I think that a progressive global tax on wealth combined with basic income would be a perfect way to average out the unfairness of the system without damaging the capitalist incentive structure.
- perilunar 10y agoWhat you've described is close to Georgism, which holds that people should only be able to own wealth they produce themselves by their own labor, and that wealth from 'rent seeking' (land rents, natural resources, natural monopolies) should belong to everyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
- unstatusthequo 10y agoAs a payor of six digits of taxes, this sounds expensive and likely to be taken advantage of by the lazy. When I grew up my basic income was something called "wages," for which I worked to earn. Someone has to fund shit like this. Handouts do not promote self help, but the opposite: dependence on the government. Is that something to be proud about?
- alexandercrohde 10y agoI find this attitude dismissive. It's easy for those of us who are very successful financially to internalize an attitude that we got wealth because we deserve it, because we tried hard. It's nice to believe the things which allow us to pat ourselves on the back and not need to be bothered with anything like "research" or "trying it out."
- dingo_bat 10y agoAccording to very quick Web searches, $1000 is about 80% of the median personal income in the usa. I calculated the same rate for India and it comes to ₹2751 per month based on a median income of $616 per annum. If I were to get ₹2751 extra every month, it wouldn't make a difference for me at all. In fact, my monthly expenses are 10x this amount and I'm only spending less than 50% of my income. So this measure surely isn't meant to have any effect on people like me. I would imagine it's a similar calculation for most people on this website. For this reason alone, we are very badly positioned to react in an emotional manner. The only decisions that should be taken should be taken on the basis of trials and hard statistics. Otherwise the "free money for slackers" sentiment is too strong when it may not be the truth.
- umberway 10y agoIt seems to me that basic income could make me either (1) fall victim to depression, addiction, or some other mental disorder, or (2) find a hard problem to work on which keeps me occupied and satisfied for a lifetime.
- devoply 10y agoOr an easy problem. Or any problem. Or social work. Or volunteer-ism. Or cycling. Or wandering the streets of your city. Honestly the work based culture has dulled the creativity people to such an extent that they can't think of anything outside of work. Or maybe human males are wired for this sort of thing. I dunno. The reason people become drug addicts or alcoholics is that it's painful to be outside of the social culture. And work is the social culture of our time. It's the only thing that makes people feel relevant. We need to invent alternative forms of feeling relevant.
- umberway 10y agoBy 'hard' problem I mean that it has depth, not that it's unpleasant. A stream of easy problems could work but it's less reliable because when there's a dry spell then outcome (1) will be scratching at the door. "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" -- JFK
- TaylorAlexander 10y agoI think a basic income is a dangerous and bad idea. If we expect the wealthy class to give their money to the masses to fund their survival, the masses would become functionally dependent on that transfer continuing. At which point the wealthy class would have incredible power over the masses. Asking for a basic income is like asking to go to prison for the free food. It is not a good idea to become dependent on others with such different interests. Instead, I advocate the development of open source automation solutions that provide everything necessary for human survival. Open source machines can be manufactured by any corporation and purchased by groups who would then own the means of their own survival. A basic income becomes a source of leverage for moneyed interests to get their way. But if we all own the machines that support our survival, we can choose for ourselves when we work and when we study to better ourselves. I've written about this recently, here: http://tlalexander.com/machine/ http://tlalexander.com/machine/
- cocoa19 10y agoOne thing I haven't seen discussed. Would we need some sort of population control with UBI? Even if robots produce all basic necessities for human life, the earth cannot sustain unrestricted population growth, which is a possibility. I don't know it's true, but I've heard of stories in Brazil where women in certain towns have many kids so they can collect additional welfare benefits for each kid.
- tomcam 10y agoWho pays for it?
- known 10y agoI'd suggest unconditional free universal health care;
- known 10y agoUBI should provide impetus to intrinsic motivation http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm
- known 10y agoThere is only 1 apple for 5 persons. Person 0 has 0 dollars; Person 1 has 1 dollars; Person 2 has 2 dollars; Person 3 has 3 dollars; Person 4 has 4 dollars; What is the price of apple?
- igallina 10y agoincome is the result of work if you get paid without work someone else is working for that since machines aren't there yet... I don't agree.
- JohnLeTigre 10y agoIt's a cool idea but the problem is that people that sell goods will raise their prices knowing that everyone has more disposable income. So the cost of life will raise and the people will have the same relative expenses (practically as poor) but without any fallback system this time around. So unless UBI is coupled with strict pricing regulations, it's a scam.
- loki49152 10y agoHow do the people who support this scheme plan to get around Say's Law? All of the wealth that this "income" can demand still has to be produced by someone. Is this just going to be open theft of wealth with printed money or open theft of wealth to be distributed as money somehow?
- PaulineCross 10y agoHOW I GET A LOAN HELP @ 2% INTEREST RATE With victoriafinancier@outlook.com I was not sure of getting a legit loan lender online But when i could not face my Debt any more, my son was on hospital bed for surgery that involve huge money and i also needed some money to refinance and get a good home then i have to seeks for Assistance from friends and when there was no hope any more i decide to go online to seek a loan and i find VICTORIA LAWSON Trust Loan Firm (victoriafinancier@outlook.com) with 2% interest Rate and applied immediately with my details as directed. Within seven Days of my application She wired my loan amount with No hidden charges and i could take care of my son medical bills, Renew my rent bill and pay off my debt. I will advice every loan seeker to contact VICTORIA LAWSON LOAN Company with victoriafinancier@outlook.com For easy and safe transaction. Full Name:_________ Address:_________ Tell:_________ loan amount:_________ Loan duration:_________ Country:_________ Purpose of loan:_________ Monthly Income:__________ Occupation__________ Next of kin :_________ *Email :_________
- PaulineCross 10y agoHOW I GET A LOAN HELP @ 2% INTEREST RATE With victoriafinancier@outlook.com I was not sure of getting a legit loan lender online But when i could not face my Debt any more, my son was on hospital bed for surgery that involve huge money and i also needed some money to refinance and get a good home then i have to seeks for Assistance from friends and when there was no hope any more i decide to go online to seek a loan and i find VICTORIA LAWSON Trust Loan Firm (victoriafinancier@outlook.com) with 2% interest Rate and applied immediately with my details as directed. Within seven Days of my application She wired my loan amount with No hidden charges and i could take care of my son medical bills, Renew my rent bill and pay off my debt. I will advice every loan seeker to contact VICTORIA LAWSON LOAN Company with victoriafinancier@outlook.com For easy and safe transaction. Full Name:_________ Address:_________ Tell:_________ loan amount:_________ Loan duration:_________ Country:_________ Purpose of loan:_________ Monthly Income:__________ Occupation__________ Next of kin :_________ *Email :_________
- PaulineCross 10y agoHOW I GET A LOAN HELP @ 2% INTEREST RATE ------------------------------------------------------ I was not sure of getting a legit loan lender online But when i could not face my Debt any more, my son was on hospital bed for surgery that involve huge money and i also needed some money to refinance and get a good home then i have to seeks for Assistance from friends and when there was no hope any more i decide to go online to seek a loan and i find VICTORIA LAWSON Trust Loan Firm (victoriafinancier@outlook.com) with 2% interest Rate and applied immediately with my details as directed. Within seven Days of my application She wired my loan amount with No hidden charges and i could take care of my son medical bills, Renew my rent bill and pay off my debt. I will advice every loan seeker to contact VICTORIA LAWSON LOAN Company with victoriafinancier@outlook.com For easy and safe transaction. Full Name:_________ Address:_________ Tell:_________ loan amount:_________ Loan duration:_________ Country:_________ Purpose of loan:_________ Monthly Income:__________ Occupation__________ Next of kin :_________ *Email :_________