TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income?

69 pointsby ryan606about 9 years ago

13 comments

VincentEvansabout 9 years ago
Why wouldn&#x27;t all standard of living benefits of basic income get eliminated immediately by all relevant costs rising to soak it up?<p>This happens every single time the poor get any sort of money. In poor neighborhoods the rents cost as much as people are able to pay, no more, no less.<p>Do you know when most rental deposits are collected? Around the tax return season.<p>If suddenly the poor had some money to spare - the rents will simply go up. The water bill will go up. Electricity, gas. Etc.. until there&#x27;s no extra income left. And then the poor will be in exactly the same situation as they are now.<p>Source: long time resident (and landlord btw) of poor neighborhoods of Philly.<p>P.S: Government is willing to help poor with mortgages? House prices balloon. Government is helping with education grants - colleges raise tuition. Borderline-broke municipalities with enormous unfunded liabilities are looking for any opportunity to collect back taxes and make up new ones. I can go on.<p>Why would this be any different? As the history shows it will provide a benefit for only a short amount of time until costs catch up.<p>P.P.S: I am not an opponent of helping poor, quite the opposite. I just don&#x27;t know how to go about it in real world.
评论 #11498175 未加载
评论 #11500164 未加载
评论 #11497510 未加载
评论 #11497560 未加载
评论 #11497777 未加载
评论 #11498013 未加载
评论 #11497755 未加载
评论 #11497747 未加载
评论 #11497524 未加载
评论 #11497486 未加载
评论 #11497684 未加载
评论 #11497653 未加载
评论 #11497479 未加载
评论 #11497627 未加载
JonFish85about 9 years ago
Well, the real question is, are you ready to pay for the Guaranteed Basic Income? Generously assuming that it&#x27;s not indexed to inflation, probably what would happen is that costs would rise to account for the newfound money. Then, of course, there would have to be services that remain in place, because if people spend their income stupidly, we can&#x27;t have them starving in the streets. Then you have the collection problem, that suddenly taxes would have to go up (and they would, of course, regardless of how many services you think you can cut).<p>The people who pay? In general, as with any tax increase, it&#x27;s the middle class. It&#x27;s the couple that went to college, saved their money, worked hard, bought a house and started a family. Regardless of how much you think you can raise tax rates on &quot;the rich&quot;, the only way to pay for something like this is by getting to the middle class, which is where the tax revenue is.
Retricabout 9 years ago
I think we should just call it what it is a dividend. We have crossed a point where handing off 10% of everyone&#x27;s income allows for a reasonable minimum standard of living. But, because progress is always going to cost some people more than others we need to align incentives.<p>Sorry, I know your a world class doctor, but <i>Auto Scan (TM)</i> just does a better job.<p>The important thing to remember is that % for a given standard is dropping over time. If 1% is enough to reach the current US standard then it&#x27;s going to be really hard to say no.<p>PS: I don&#x27;t think we will take this global any time soon. But, we could. World GDP is 106 dollars per person per day. 10% of that is 10.06$ per person per day. 80% of humanity lives on less than 10$ per day.
评论 #11497675 未加载
评论 #11497229 未加载
dota_fanaticabout 9 years ago
Disclaimer: I don&#x27;t know anything about anything.<p>Some parents can put 850k in a account for their child when it&#x27;s born that gets invested, say in the American economy (grows by say 7% over an average, long time period), which compounds until later in life, and when they grow up, they can access it. With good financial responsibility, this child won&#x27;t have to work a day in their lives and can live off the returns.<p>Why can&#x27;t we as a society do this for everyone, but you can never touch the account, only the returns? That is, wealth and a foot in the returns of humanity as a right.<p>You&#x27;re born, you get $1mil put in an account that gets invested. When you turn 18, you start getting a monthly check, the return on that investment. You can never touch the account, only get its returns.<p>Someone tell me why this is a bad idea, worse than guaranteed basic income.
评论 #11497687 未加载
评论 #11498006 未加载
评论 #11497760 未加载
评论 #11497589 未加载
评论 #11497672 未加载
评论 #11497713 未加载
评论 #11497637 未加载
wimaggucabout 9 years ago
An earlier Freakonomics episode [1] discusses whether early retirement is bad for the health. According to the show it actually might be: <i>&quot;one additional year of early retirement causes an increase in the risk of premature death of 2.4 percentage points&quot;</i><p>Guaranteed Basic Income sounds like an early retirement option for most people, so where it&#x27;s probably a fantastic opportunity for self-starters, it might be lethal for everyone else. GBI&#x27;s side effect can be weeding out non-entrepreneurs.<p>[1] Early Retirement: Bad For Your Health? <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;freakonomics.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;03&#x2F;29&#x2F;early-retirement-bad-for-your-health&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;freakonomics.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;03&#x2F;29&#x2F;early-retirement-bad-for-...</a>
f_allweinabout 9 years ago
It is important to consider this as more and more white-collar jobs may become redundant due to automation [e.g. 1].<p>Moreover, it would be interesting to see what becomes of today&#x27;s jobs if there were an basic income. E.g. what percentage of jobs would disappear and not be missed? How many people would continue to work at their current job?<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;books.simonandschuster.com&#x2F;The-Industries-of-the-Future&#x2F;Alec-Ross&#x2F;9781476753652" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;books.simonandschuster.com&#x2F;The-Industries-of-the-Futu...</a>
评论 #11497655 未加载
klungerabout 9 years ago
It was interesting that they used dogs as an example of a population that had its work taken away by technological progress, yet did not provide the obvious counter example (horses).
评论 #11501292 未加载
Overtonwindowabout 9 years ago
Negative. Those with money will fight like hell to keep from giving it up. However if by some chance&#x2F;miracle a guaranteed income is ever instituted, it will become a political football, as politicians and advocacy groups seek to continuously push it higher and higher. Instead of a money handout, I would rather support money in exchange for public works and service. I don&#x27;t believe handouts without some kind of exchange will ever really work.
评论 #11497458 未加载
评论 #11497243 未加载
评论 #11497572 未加载
评论 #11497408 未加载
评论 #11497472 未加载
评论 #11497234 未加载
vansteenabout 9 years ago
Next month in Switzerland, there&#x27;s a votation to establish a basic income. See <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Swiss_referendums,_2016#Basic_income_referendum" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Swiss_referendums,_2016#Basic_...</a>
ancapabout 9 years ago
In the past century we have countless examples of socialism failing, yet its proponents devise some new scheme, some new brand and try to sell it as if something will be different this time. Socialism will always fail because it is contradictory to human nature.
评论 #11497788 未加载
评论 #11497963 未加载
vaaduabout 9 years ago
Where is the incentive to get people off the couch looking for work or going to school?
评论 #11497681 未加载
评论 #11497941 未加载
评论 #11497754 未加载
评论 #11497476 未加载
评论 #11499348 未加载
tgflynnabout 9 years ago
It seems to me that the question of how to finance a UBI is probably the largest stumbling block.<p>Of course it could be done through taxes but a lot of people have legitimate concerns about government taxation. For taxation to work you need a coercive government and many of us are very aware of the downsides of such an entity. Of course taxation isn&#x27;t the only reason we have a coercive government there&#x27;s also the war on drugs and other policies which seem to ultimately derive from the need of a significant fraction of the population to dictate the choices of their fellow citizens. This tendency is of course inevitably amplified among those who self-select for government or political careers. There is also to some degree a legitimate need for self-defense which also inevitably leads to some degree of coercive government. But even if these problems could be solved, say for example through more rational and better focused defense policies and through evolution of ethical views to give greater weight to the desires of individuals to lead their lives as they see fit, if we are going to provide a safety net for everyone we will always need some form of government and if that government is financed through taxation a level of coercive and invasive policies is likely inevitable.<p>Could we find a better way to finance government and a UBI ? Some countries and regions with extensive natural resources have been able to leverage them to help finance their governments and provide assistance to citizens (examples I believe include Norway and Alaska). However most economies are not so strongly dependent on the exploitation of natural resources so this type of solution cannot be generalized. What if a nation&#x27;s government became an investor in that nation&#x27;s economy ? I&#x27;m not talking about nationalization of industry but allowing the government to acquire minority ownership of public corporations as a means not of exerting control but of generating income. Could we imagine government evolving to the point of relying for its financing on a financial portfolio much like some universities receive substantial income from their endowments ? I&#x27;m not an economist but I&#x27;ve never encountered this idea in the press. It would be interesting to know what the experts think of it.
评论 #11497622 未加载
评论 #11497698 未加载
tzsabout 9 years ago
I&#x27;ve wondered if a &quot;guaranteed basic goods&quot; systems might make sense, either as an alternative to a basic income system, or as a way to slowly transition to one.<p>The idea would be that as we figure out how to automate things, we make those things essentially public goods. We end up with a mixed economy, where we have one class of goods that are produced in publicly owned automated factories and do not cost the consumer money, and another class of goods that work like they do now where private parties produce them and sell them for money which the buyers earn through paid employment.<p>For instance, consider vegetables. We&#x27;re close to being able to make almost fully automated farms for many crops, and we&#x27;re close to fully automating most of the shipping from farm to market. The idea would be that as we achieve this, the government buys up these farms (or starts its own farms), and everyone gets a daily allotment of the produce from these farms. Some meat production is also highly automated, and so we should be able to at some point in the not too distant future add meat to this.<p>At that point everyone who has a place to cook has their basic food requirements taken care of.<p>How about transportation? Automobile manufacture is very automated. At some point that too will be almost completely automated. Combine that with self-driving cars, and we should be able to have a publicly owned nationwide fleet of self-driving taxis. Ideally these would be electric cars, powered by publicly owned solar, wind, hydroelectric, or nuclear systems.<p>As automation gets more and more advanced, more and more goods can be added to the &quot;made by publicly owned automated factories&quot; list and made available to all.<p>When enough stuff is automated and turned into public goods to allow someone to survive reasonably without a job as long as they have housing, we can start making publicly owned housing in places where land and construction costs are cheap. That will be away from the big cities, but for people who decide to not work that would be fine, as it would for people who can work remotely. So we should be able to reach a point where everyone can have a basic apartment or small house and the necessities to survive reasonably there, without an income.<p>Will we ever be able to automate everything except creative intellectual work? I don&#x27;t think so, at least not for a long time. I think that would require the development of something like the robots from Asimov&#x27;s stories--robots that have human form factors (so that they can work anywhere that a human can work) and human level intelligence, and I don&#x27;t think we&#x27;ll be there anytime in the next 100 years.<p>A nice thing about this approach is that it can be done with minimal disruption. With basic income you have to give everyone enough to reasonably survive right from the start. With basic goods, you go item by item, industry by industry.