5 ms·

No we don't. We have too many people who -- even despite having respectable jobs -- can't afford the basic necessities for the month, let alone save for their f

No we don't. We have too many people who -- even despite having respectable jobs -- can't afford the basic necessities for the month, let alone save for their future and family. The problem they're facing is the lack of the guaranteed basic income, not the lack of a job to collect it.

_heimdall 2y ago
UBI will almost certainly fail to cover the necessities unless we have Marx-style price controls. When everyone in the economy has a minimum of say $3,000 per month the cost of necessities, and everything else, will go up roughly in line with that.
- paulddraper 2y ago
  Case study: COVID
  - winkeltripel 2y ago
    That isn't a test of anything, since we've not isolated a single policy change; many things changed everywhere all over the world all at once.
    - almosthere 2y ago
      Yes, I think there was a few things going on with covid, most of all the fact that shipping got halted for a year and we're still unwinding the damage from that (although, mostly smooth now).
- dataflow 2y ago
  I wasn't here to take a stance on UBI or argue over its practicalities, I was just explaining the intended outcome was not what the parent believed it to be. But fine, I'll bite. > will go up roughly in line with that Could you at least explain the logic that you believe implies this would occur with such certainty? I've thought about this before and I couldn't see this as a necessary outcome, though (depending on various factors) I do see it as a possible one.
  - rank0 2y ago
    > Could you at least explain the logic that you believe implies this would occur with such certainty? Because we haven’t actually created anything. Supply is the same, demand is WAY up.
    - dataflow 2y ago
      That doesn't follow. It's a reason to believe prices will increase, not that prices will increase roughly in line with the income increase. This distinction is not a minor detail, it's pretty crucial. If you give people $3k and the prices go up by $2k... that's a very different scenario from one where the prices go up by $3k.
      - rank0 2y ago
        It should all even out in the long run. As long as we’re in a deficit, spending for this program would directly increase the money supply. Of course there are other factors like velocity of money and elasticity of good/services but at the end of the day we’re increasing the amount of money (aka cash + credit) with no change to supply AND we’re going into debt to do it.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Capitalism is based on, among other things, an expectation that free markets are pretty good at balancing out in the long run. If demand goes up only because access to money goes up, prices will rise. Any increase in supply over time will eat up some of that price fluctuation, but for most products prices are more flexible than supply and a majority share of any capital increase will go towards prices rather than supply.
    - dataflow 2y ago
      > a majority share of any capital increase will go towards prices rather than supply You actually made my point, I think: that the price increase need not necessarily be "roughly in line with that", but could be less. This distinction is absolutely critical. Like I said in [1], if you put $3k in my pocket, and my expenses increase by $2k, that's a very different situation from if my expenses grow by $3k. It would mean there is a reachable equilibrium. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43430867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43430867
- nmz 2y ago
  And yet we have christmas, with its very own christmas bonus.
- LinXitoW 2y ago
  We already have "Marx-style" price control and regulations in many sectors, specifically food production. It's just that the advantages are arbitraged away by corporations using cheap corn to create highly addictive foods, and lobbying and marketing with the resultant profits. But I also disagree with your assertion. Minimum wage increases are a great example. Opponents will constantly claim they will lead to massively increasing prices, but they never do. Moreover, a higher standard of employment rights and payment in first world countries like Norway doesn't seem to correlate well with higher Big Mac prices.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    > We already have "Marx-style" price control and regulations in many sectors, specifically food production. And our food quality in the US is garbage. We can't say if there is causation there since we can't compare against a baseline US food system without subsidies, but there is a correlation in timing between the increase in food subsidies and the decrease in quality. > Opponents will constantly claim they will lead to massively increasing prices, but they never do. The only times that really comes up is when an increase is proposed and the whole debate is over politicized. Claims on both sides at those times are going to be exaggerated. Prices absolutely go up with minimum wage increases. How could they not? It'd be totally reasonable to argue the timeline that matters, prices aren't going to go up immediately. You could also argue the ratio, maybe wage is increased by 30% and prices are only expected to go up by 20%. People earning a minimum wage almost certainly have pent up demand, they would buy more if they could afford it. Increasing their wages opens that door a bit, they will spend more which means demand, and prices, will go up in response.
    - orangecat 2y ago
      You could also argue the ratio, maybe wage is increased by 30% and prices are only expected to go up by 20%. And the point is that the income percentage increase is higher for those with lower incomes. Even if prices go up by 20%, somebody making $20k/year who gets an additional $10k from UBI is going to be much better off.
rank0 2y ago
This is not a fully solvable problem. Especially if the goal is to provide the above for any location. You can do more harm than good by implementing policies like “guaranteed free money”.
- wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
  I can not believe this was voted down. It is simply an assertion of fact. Whether true or not, seems reasonable and most people would agree with it.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    > I can not believe this was voted down. It is simply an assertion of fact. Whether true or not, seems reasonable and most people would agree with it. If it was voted down, I'm guessing it was because to the extent that it's a fact, it's trivially true, and there's nothing insightful about the defeatist take. It's possible to do more harm than good doing pretty much anything. And the world is littered with problems that are not "fully solvable" but that we've mitigated greatly.
    - wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
      consider the following hypothetical situation: lets say your car tires pop. Person A: "I will paint your car tires red. That will fix them." Person B: "painting my flat car tires red wont fix them." Person C: "well youre just being defeatest. we have to do something". Person B: "..."
- blackqueeriroh 2y ago
  Literally every. single. study. run. says otherwise. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9459?ref=scottsantens.com https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9459?ref=scottsantens.c...
  - rank0 2y ago
    History is littered with failed nation-states promising to end poverty. Spawning money creates nothing.

_heimdall 2y ago

UBI will almost certainly fail to cover the necessities unless we have Marx-style price controls. When everyone in the economy has a minimum of say $3,000 per month the cost of necessities, and everything else, will go up roughly in line with that.

paulddraper 2y ago
Case study: COVID
- winkeltripel 2y ago
  That isn't a test of anything, since we've not isolated a single policy change; many things changed everywhere all over the world all at once.
  - almosthere 2y ago
    Yes, I think there was a few things going on with covid, most of all the fact that shipping got halted for a year and we're still unwinding the damage from that (although, mostly smooth now).
dataflow 2y ago
I wasn't here to take a stance on UBI or argue over its practicalities, I was just explaining the intended outcome was not what the parent believed it to be. But fine, I'll bite. > will go up roughly in line with that Could you at least explain the logic that you believe implies this would occur with such certainty? I've thought about this before and I couldn't see this as a necessary outcome, though (depending on various factors) I do see it as a possible one.
- rank0 2y ago
  > Could you at least explain the logic that you believe implies this would occur with such certainty? Because we haven’t actually created anything. Supply is the same, demand is WAY up.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    That doesn't follow. It's a reason to believe prices will increase, not that prices will increase roughly in line with the income increase. This distinction is not a minor detail, it's pretty crucial. If you give people $3k and the prices go up by $2k... that's a very different scenario from one where the prices go up by $3k.
    - rank0 2y ago
      It should all even out in the long run. As long as we’re in a deficit, spending for this program would directly increase the money supply. Of course there are other factors like velocity of money and elasticity of good/services but at the end of the day we’re increasing the amount of money (aka cash + credit) with no change to supply AND we’re going into debt to do it.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Capitalism is based on, among other things, an expectation that free markets are pretty good at balancing out in the long run. If demand goes up only because access to money goes up, prices will rise. Any increase in supply over time will eat up some of that price fluctuation, but for most products prices are more flexible than supply and a majority share of any capital increase will go towards prices rather than supply.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    > a majority share of any capital increase will go towards prices rather than supply You actually made my point, I think: that the price increase need not necessarily be "roughly in line with that", but could be less. This distinction is absolutely critical. Like I said in [1], if you put $3k in my pocket, and my expenses increase by $2k, that's a very different situation from if my expenses grow by $3k. It would mean there is a reachable equilibrium. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43430867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43430867
nmz 2y ago
And yet we have christmas, with its very own christmas bonus.
LinXitoW 2y ago
We already have "Marx-style" price control and regulations in many sectors, specifically food production. It's just that the advantages are arbitraged away by corporations using cheap corn to create highly addictive foods, and lobbying and marketing with the resultant profits. But I also disagree with your assertion. Minimum wage increases are a great example. Opponents will constantly claim they will lead to massively increasing prices, but they never do. Moreover, a higher standard of employment rights and payment in first world countries like Norway doesn't seem to correlate well with higher Big Mac prices.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > We already have "Marx-style" price control and regulations in many sectors, specifically food production. And our food quality in the US is garbage. We can't say if there is causation there since we can't compare against a baseline US food system without subsidies, but there is a correlation in timing between the increase in food subsidies and the decrease in quality. > Opponents will constantly claim they will lead to massively increasing prices, but they never do. The only times that really comes up is when an increase is proposed and the whole debate is over politicized. Claims on both sides at those times are going to be exaggerated. Prices absolutely go up with minimum wage increases. How could they not? It'd be totally reasonable to argue the timeline that matters, prices aren't going to go up immediately. You could also argue the ratio, maybe wage is increased by 30% and prices are only expected to go up by 20%. People earning a minimum wage almost certainly have pent up demand, they would buy more if they could afford it. Increasing their wages opens that door a bit, they will spend more which means demand, and prices, will go up in response.
  - orangecat 2y ago
    You could also argue the ratio, maybe wage is increased by 30% and prices are only expected to go up by 20%. And the point is that the income percentage increase is higher for those with lower incomes. Even if prices go up by 20%, somebody making $20k/year who gets an additional $10k from UBI is going to be much better off.

rank0 2y ago

This is not a fully solvable problem. Especially if the goal is to provide the above for any location. You can do more harm than good by implementing policies like “guaranteed free money”.

wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
I can not believe this was voted down. It is simply an assertion of fact. Whether true or not, seems reasonable and most people would agree with it.
- dataflow 2y ago
  > I can not believe this was voted down. It is simply an assertion of fact. Whether true or not, seems reasonable and most people would agree with it. If it was voted down, I'm guessing it was because to the extent that it's a fact, it's trivially true, and there's nothing insightful about the defeatist take. It's possible to do more harm than good doing pretty much anything. And the world is littered with problems that are not "fully solvable" but that we've mitigated greatly.
  - wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
    consider the following hypothetical situation: lets say your car tires pop. Person A: "I will paint your car tires red. That will fix them." Person B: "painting my flat car tires red wont fix them." Person C: "well youre just being defeatest. we have to do something". Person B: "..."
blackqueeriroh 2y ago
Literally every. single. study. run. says otherwise. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9459?ref=scottsantens.com https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9459?ref=scottsantens.c...
- rank0 2y ago
  History is littered with failed nation-states promising to end poverty. Spawning money creates nothing.