36 ms·

>The cost of rent and everything in the market goes up with the tide. The middle class, and even moderately well off professionals, get a quality of life and pa

>The cost of rent and everything in the market goes up with the tide. The middle class, and even moderately well off professionals, get a quality of life and pay CUT (in effect, since they don't get the raise). I disagree - a UBI means that anyone who's able to live frugally may, at any time, retire. This gives enormous bargaining power to workers, as if the pay is too low then they can say "fuck it, I'm moving to <insert rural ghost town>, buying an abandoned house for $1, and living off my UBI". Not only does this put downward pressure on rent, it also encourages jobs to be more available in rural areas, as people will move to there for lower costs of living instead of moving away because it's unaffordable due to lack of jobs/UBI. Your wage is not determined by your productivity, it's determined by your bargaining power (your Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) being the main one, but how unique your skills are determines your employer's BATNA). In other words, employers will employ you for any amount that still lets them make a profit off of your labour, but they will pay you the least they can get away with paying without you walking away. Some people literally can't afford to walk away, and they're the people who are paid dogshit wages. A UBI would let them walk away until their job calls them with a good offer.

mjevans 5y ago
Bargaining power fixes: Provide 'employment transition' by banking vacation carry over and get paid out when someone quits (optionally paid at the otherwise normal rate over time until depleted). Medicare for all with dental, vision and hearing - Single payer healthcare so that it isn't tied to a job, and helps return those out of work to work if our medical tech is sufficient. Make current US job benefits (vacation, sick pay, medical co-coverage) paid by taxes on corporations proportional to the pay for workers. Hourly workers should pro-rated with E.G. 20 hours of work for 'full benefits'. Also require hourly jobs to be scheduled in advance in some fair way that doesn't de-facto allow an abusive employer to have someone on call without paying them to be on call. The socialization of the vacation benefits also benefits corporations, since they would no longer hold those assets on their balance sheet as liabilities.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  You could simply just stop treating vacation time as a perk or something you earn and, instead, simply give everyone paid vacation time. It doesn't have to be expensive: Norway collects taxes in a way that means you basically fund your own vacation: The downside is that you don't get that money if you didn't work last year, but there is a push to fix that. And I completely agree about scheduling: Employers should pay extra for changing a schedule in too short of a frame. Yes, this also means that everyone might get paid extra for releasing the schedule too late. I'd also add that everyone should have the right to work contracts. At a minimum, it'd state how to break the contract (fair notice, both sides, exceptions apply), rate of pay, number of hours expected (even for salary workers), and a start date.
Aerroon 5y ago
Somebody has to actually create all the stuff that people consume. UBI doesn't address that point. If these employers have to pay more to hire people, then prices will go up. When you have 200 million apples and 300 million people then UBI won't get the 100 million people an apple. Growing more apples does. And this same process would apply to virtually every good and service people consume. You might be right on rent, but that would probably exacerbate the price of goods problem further since there would be fewer people willing to do those jobs. UBI will only make people better off if more goods and services are produced as a result of it. Or alternatively, if goods and services are somehow moved from excessive consumption by the rich to the poor. But that last part is probably a drop in the bucket. Rich people still eat the same amount of food for dinner.
- dtech 5y ago
  This argument is usually countered by pointing out that a lot of our production is mechanized nowadays, and this percentage is only increasing. Currently capital owners take the overwhelming majority of the gains from that, UBI tries to shift that more to everyone. UBI won't prevent more apples from being produced. You rightly point out that that does not apply to supply-inflexible goods like housing in cities.
- dgb23 5y ago
  We already have that productivity and more, but we waste it. Artificial scarcity is created by producing machines that intentionally break, bunkering and throwing away stuff, patent trolling and so on. UBI alone likely won’t fix this though.
- enaaem 5y ago
  The Saudi Arabia way is to bring in third world country workers. They have tons of natural resources per capita though, so I don’t think this luxury applies to most countries in the world.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  Except that repeated experiments have found that raising wages and improving working conditions raises productivity and efficiency. Costs of good sold doesn't go up, so there's no need to raise prices. People who are able to focus on their work because they can pay their bills, have good working conditions, are healthy and able to care for their families work better. Big surprise. Of course there's an upper limit to this - if you're paying your apple pickers more than the retail price of the apples then you're going to be in trouble. But in those cases, the price of apples needs to be higher so that apple pickers can have some basic human dignity. Apples should cost more, but we have created an evil system that destroys apple pickers' lives so that the rest of us can have cheap apples. Let's not do that any more.
RhodoGSA 5y ago
I don't think UBI is ever the answer and the article hints at that. Giving the low paid workers 'bargaining power' doesn't negate the points OP made. Flooding the economy with free money to everyone also doesn't hold up to actual analysis. The US has 300M+ people, even $1000 a month to each person is utterly unrealistic in terms of our GDP. The answer is highly targeted programs that increase general prosperity. Money for cheaper energy, better services, public works, public transportation, more housing and favorable investments in future technologies are what drive prosperity. Make people as a whole less motivated to work is the antithesis of economic prosperity.
- lmm 5y ago
  Targeted programs don't generally work; they rely on the idea that whoever is doing the targeting can predict the future better than everyone else, which isn't usually true. > Make people as a whole less motivated to work is the antithesis of economic prosperity. Making people as a whole less trapped in dead-end jobs is great for economic prosperity. We know that people are more productive once they have a safety net that lets them take risk, e.g. there's a huge bump in people starting their own businesses - a big economic positive on average, but risky - once they hit the medicaid eligibility age. Or taking the time to retrain and switch careers - again, positive on average, but something a lot of people can't afford or don't dare to take the risk of.
  - dbsmith83 5y ago
    > Targeted programs don't generally work; they rely on the idea that whoever is doing the targeting can predict the future better than everyone else, which isn't usually true. What are you saying? That most government programs aren't working? Please share the data.
  - RhodoGSA 5y ago
    I don't have to be able to predict the future more than everyone else to vastly expand water reservoir's, increase education, build solar/wind/fission, public works... also, i've seen HN comments do extremely complex calculations about delta V but no one seems to do that math for UBI. what's 300m * $1000 a month? and 1,000 still doesn't cut it in most major cities.
tasogare 5y ago
> UBI means that anyone who's able to live frugally may, at any time, retire Will never happen: a soon as it starts rolling to a significant number of people, the minimal rent set by landlords will be the amount of UBI. In addition to its other issues, it can't work in a market where landlords can freely set their rents.
- lmm 5y ago
  Landlords' bargaining power goes down a lot once people don't have to live somewhere where there are jobs available.
  - 988747 5y ago
    On the other hand: with UBI even the landlords in the middle of nowhere can demand higher rent, since everyone now has a spare $1000 per month Laws of economy are like laws of physics: you cannot cheat them. All the UBI will do is it will raise the nominal prices of everything, but no poor person will be better off because of it. Small scale experiments on UBI are successful only because they are small scale, so they cannot affect economy at large. Once you make UBI truly universal the reality kicks in, and inflation eats it all.
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      > with UBI even the landlords in the middle of nowhere can demand higher rent If that was happen it would only encourage people on UBI to buy the cheapest houses or by land to build. Not being bound to a location, they would be able to do so easily. > All the UBI will do is it will raise the nominal prices of everything [...] inflation eats it all. Plain false. UBI does not create new money out of nowhere.
      - 988747 5y ago
        Of course UBI will create new money - how else are you going to finance it? Giving each adult American $1000 per month would cost at least $2.5 trillion. Let's assume that UBI replaces all other Social Security spending - that's currently $1.2T, so you are still $1.3T short. You cannot collect that much in new taxes. Even assuming that you somehow manage to finance UBI with tax raises alone think about what you'll be doing: you would be moving money from the rich to the poor, which sounds good in theory, until you realize that rich people and corporations keep their money in financial assets. Now, the reason why all the FED money printing so far caused only mild inflation is because the money flew to financial markets. If you use taxes to redirect it to common people then you are doubly screwing them: you are crashing stock markets, ruining their 401(k) savings, and at the same time causing price inflation of everyday things.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xupybd 5y ago
Ubi will only allow people to retire if it's a substantial amount. Can society really afford that right now?
bongoman37 5y ago
Regarding UBI I have asked this in multiple forums (not HN) so I'll ask again and see if you (or anyone else) has a response to this. After the oil bonanza in the middle East, a number of countries pretty much had a UBI like system for all their citizens and most still do. In effect, what I saw when I've been there was not that people have engaged in creative endeavours, or things that UBI proponents often claim will happen once everyone has UBI. They imported lots of workers from poorer countries to do all the shitty work, and treat the workers horrifically. The amount of time spent toward religious activities is absurd. E.g., shops and markets entirely close down multiple times a day for prayers. This has other knock on effects as well. How do we know this is not what the US would head toward if UBI is implemented?
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  Interesting points. On the other hand, Norway found oil very late and was a very organized society by then. You can find the good drama miniseries "Lykkeland" showing the early part from a small town perspective. Fishermen became oilmen. Religious fundamentalism went down, wellbeing went up.
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  The amount of time spent toward religious activities is absurd. E.g., shops and markets entirely close down multiple times a day for prayers. Ah yes, the God of Commerce doesn’t like it when you give other gods more attention.
  - bongoman37 5y ago
    It isn't about God of commerce, it is about forcing everyone to follow someone else's diktats. Its like how no one can buy alcohol on Sundays in many parts of the US except to a far larger extent.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      Why do you believe the shop workers want to stay open? If they're religious, they probably want to be praying. If it's a theocratic state, that might be an issue, but if it's just a religious populace I see no reason to believe you're right.
HPsquared 5y ago
Will this increase the number of houses available? I think the opposite.

mjevans 5y ago

Bargaining power fixes: Provide 'employment transition' by banking vacation carry over and get paid out when someone quits (optionally paid at the otherwise normal rate over time until depleted). Medicare for all with dental, vision and hearing - Single payer healthcare so that it isn't tied to a job, and helps return those out of work to work if our medical tech is sufficient. Make current US job benefits (vacation, sick pay, medical co-coverage) paid by taxes on corporations proportional to the pay for workers. Hourly workers should pro-rated with E.G. 20 hours of work for 'full benefits'. Also require hourly jobs to be scheduled in advance in some fair way that doesn't de-facto allow an abusive employer to have someone on call without paying them to be on call. The socialization of the vacation benefits also benefits corporations, since they would no longer hold those assets on their balance sheet as liabilities.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago
You could simply just stop treating vacation time as a perk or something you earn and, instead, simply give everyone paid vacation time. It doesn't have to be expensive: Norway collects taxes in a way that means you basically fund your own vacation: The downside is that you don't get that money if you didn't work last year, but there is a push to fix that. And I completely agree about scheduling: Employers should pay extra for changing a schedule in too short of a frame. Yes, this also means that everyone might get paid extra for releasing the schedule too late. I'd also add that everyone should have the right to work contracts. At a minimum, it'd state how to break the contract (fair notice, both sides, exceptions apply), rate of pay, number of hours expected (even for salary workers), and a start date.

Aerroon 5y ago

Somebody has to actually create all the stuff that people consume. UBI doesn't address that point. If these employers have to pay more to hire people, then prices will go up. When you have 200 million apples and 300 million people then UBI won't get the 100 million people an apple. Growing more apples does. And this same process would apply to virtually every good and service people consume. You might be right on rent, but that would probably exacerbate the price of goods problem further since there would be fewer people willing to do those jobs. UBI will only make people better off if more goods and services are produced as a result of it. Or alternatively, if goods and services are somehow moved from excessive consumption by the rich to the poor. But that last part is probably a drop in the bucket. Rich people still eat the same amount of food for dinner.

dtech 5y ago
This argument is usually countered by pointing out that a lot of our production is mechanized nowadays, and this percentage is only increasing. Currently capital owners take the overwhelming majority of the gains from that, UBI tries to shift that more to everyone. UBI won't prevent more apples from being produced. You rightly point out that that does not apply to supply-inflexible goods like housing in cities.
dgb23 5y ago
We already have that productivity and more, but we waste it. Artificial scarcity is created by producing machines that intentionally break, bunkering and throwing away stuff, patent trolling and so on. UBI alone likely won’t fix this though.
enaaem 5y ago
The Saudi Arabia way is to bring in third world country workers. They have tons of natural resources per capita though, so I don’t think this luxury applies to most countries in the world.
marcus_holmes 5y ago
Except that repeated experiments have found that raising wages and improving working conditions raises productivity and efficiency. Costs of good sold doesn't go up, so there's no need to raise prices. People who are able to focus on their work because they can pay their bills, have good working conditions, are healthy and able to care for their families work better. Big surprise. Of course there's an upper limit to this - if you're paying your apple pickers more than the retail price of the apples then you're going to be in trouble. But in those cases, the price of apples needs to be higher so that apple pickers can have some basic human dignity. Apples should cost more, but we have created an evil system that destroys apple pickers' lives so that the rest of us can have cheap apples. Let's not do that any more.

RhodoGSA 5y ago

I don't think UBI is ever the answer and the article hints at that. Giving the low paid workers 'bargaining power' doesn't negate the points OP made. Flooding the economy with free money to everyone also doesn't hold up to actual analysis. The US has 300M+ people, even $1000 a month to each person is utterly unrealistic in terms of our GDP. The answer is highly targeted programs that increase general prosperity. Money for cheaper energy, better services, public works, public transportation, more housing and favorable investments in future technologies are what drive prosperity. Make people as a whole less motivated to work is the antithesis of economic prosperity.

lmm 5y ago
Targeted programs don't generally work; they rely on the idea that whoever is doing the targeting can predict the future better than everyone else, which isn't usually true. > Make people as a whole less motivated to work is the antithesis of economic prosperity. Making people as a whole less trapped in dead-end jobs is great for economic prosperity. We know that people are more productive once they have a safety net that lets them take risk, e.g. there's a huge bump in people starting their own businesses - a big economic positive on average, but risky - once they hit the medicaid eligibility age. Or taking the time to retrain and switch careers - again, positive on average, but something a lot of people can't afford or don't dare to take the risk of.
- dbsmith83 5y ago
  > Targeted programs don't generally work; they rely on the idea that whoever is doing the targeting can predict the future better than everyone else, which isn't usually true. What are you saying? That most government programs aren't working? Please share the data.
- RhodoGSA 5y ago
  I don't have to be able to predict the future more than everyone else to vastly expand water reservoir's, increase education, build solar/wind/fission, public works... also, i've seen HN comments do extremely complex calculations about delta V but no one seems to do that math for UBI. what's 300m * $1000 a month? and 1,000 still doesn't cut it in most major cities.

tasogare 5y ago

> UBI means that anyone who's able to live frugally may, at any time, retire Will never happen: a soon as it starts rolling to a significant number of people, the minimal rent set by landlords will be the amount of UBI. In addition to its other issues, it can't work in a market where landlords can freely set their rents.

lmm 5y ago
Landlords' bargaining power goes down a lot once people don't have to live somewhere where there are jobs available.
- 988747 5y ago
  On the other hand: with UBI even the landlords in the middle of nowhere can demand higher rent, since everyone now has a spare $1000 per month Laws of economy are like laws of physics: you cannot cheat them. All the UBI will do is it will raise the nominal prices of everything, but no poor person will be better off because of it. Small scale experiments on UBI are successful only because they are small scale, so they cannot affect economy at large. Once you make UBI truly universal the reality kicks in, and inflation eats it all.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    > with UBI even the landlords in the middle of nowhere can demand higher rent If that was happen it would only encourage people on UBI to buy the cheapest houses or by land to build. Not being bound to a location, they would be able to do so easily. > All the UBI will do is it will raise the nominal prices of everything [...] inflation eats it all. Plain false. UBI does not create new money out of nowhere.
    - 988747 5y ago
      Of course UBI will create new money - how else are you going to finance it? Giving each adult American $1000 per month would cost at least $2.5 trillion. Let's assume that UBI replaces all other Social Security spending - that's currently $1.2T, so you are still $1.3T short. You cannot collect that much in new taxes. Even assuming that you somehow manage to finance UBI with tax raises alone think about what you'll be doing: you would be moving money from the rich to the poor, which sounds good in theory, until you realize that rich people and corporations keep their money in financial assets. Now, the reason why all the FED money printing so far caused only mild inflation is because the money flew to financial markets. If you use taxes to redirect it to common people then you are doubly screwing them: you are crashing stock markets, ruining their 401(k) savings, and at the same time causing price inflation of everyday things.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

xupybd 5y ago

Ubi will only allow people to retire if it's a substantial amount. Can society really afford that right now?

bongoman37 5y ago

Regarding UBI I have asked this in multiple forums (not HN) so I'll ask again and see if you (or anyone else) has a response to this. After the oil bonanza in the middle East, a number of countries pretty much had a UBI like system for all their citizens and most still do. In effect, what I saw when I've been there was not that people have engaged in creative endeavours, or things that UBI proponents often claim will happen once everyone has UBI. They imported lots of workers from poorer countries to do all the shitty work, and treat the workers horrifically. The amount of time spent toward religious activities is absurd. E.g., shops and markets entirely close down multiple times a day for prayers. This has other knock on effects as well. How do we know this is not what the US would head toward if UBI is implemented?

Gravityloss 5y ago
Interesting points. On the other hand, Norway found oil very late and was a very organized society by then. You can find the good drama miniseries "Lykkeland" showing the early part from a small town perspective. Fishermen became oilmen. Religious fundamentalism went down, wellbeing went up.
ceilingcorner 5y ago
The amount of time spent toward religious activities is absurd. E.g., shops and markets entirely close down multiple times a day for prayers. Ah yes, the God of Commerce doesn’t like it when you give other gods more attention.
- bongoman37 5y ago
  It isn't about God of commerce, it is about forcing everyone to follow someone else's diktats. Its like how no one can buy alcohol on Sundays in many parts of the US except to a far larger extent.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Why do you believe the shop workers want to stay open? If they're religious, they probably want to be praying. If it's a theocratic state, that might be an issue, but if it's just a religious populace I see no reason to believe you're right.

HPsquared 5y ago

Will this increase the number of houses available? I think the opposite.