Hiring for Basic Income(blog.ycombinator.com)
blog.ycombinator.com
Hiring for Basic Income
https://blog.ycombinator.com/hiring-for-basic-income/
127 comments
> So with that in mind, how the heck can these countries even consider rolling out a new "basic income" program?
Unconditional income programs (whether they meet basic needs or not) are conceived of as replacing some or all existing means-tested benefit programs, and reducing or eliminating the adverse employment effects of minimum wage laws (without eliminating the income-floor effects of those same laws).
They can be budget neutral by either being cost neutral (redirecting funds from the displaced programs) or by being tied to specific new funding sources. (Given that one of the long-term goals is to address long-term concentration of economic gains in capital rather than labor, capital-specific income or ad valorem taxation is the natural place to look for dedicated new revenue streams.)
Unconditional income programs (whether they meet basic needs or not) are conceived of as replacing some or all existing means-tested benefit programs, and reducing or eliminating the adverse employment effects of minimum wage laws (without eliminating the income-floor effects of those same laws).
They can be budget neutral by either being cost neutral (redirecting funds from the displaced programs) or by being tied to specific new funding sources. (Given that one of the long-term goals is to address long-term concentration of economic gains in capital rather than labor, capital-specific income or ad valorem taxation is the natural place to look for dedicated new revenue streams.)
How can they be cost neutral? That would only happen if by luck the same number of people applied to basic income as previously applied for means-tested benefits. I find this scenario unlikely! Also, even if you have some new funding source, the system would have potentially huge liabilities if lots of people decide to sign up for it. Given that we can barely manage pensions, which I suspect have more stable characteristics than the hypothetical distribution of basic income requests, I'm skeptical that we could successfully manage a basic income program.
> How can they be cost neutral?
That's literally exactly what the GP post explains. If the funds distributed as UBI are the funds redirected from replaced programs, the costs are, by definition, the same.
> That would only happen if by luck the same number of people applied to basic income as previously applied for means-tested benefits.
No, it wouldn't. You are assuming equal per beneficiary per time period total benefit + administrative costs.
> Also, even if you have some new funding source, the system would have potentially huge liabilities if lots of people decide to sign up for it.
No, its not dependent on people who "decide to sign up for" since, by definition, an unconditional income is given unconditionally to every member of the target population; that's part of the basic calculation of the benefit that can be given at any funding level.
That's literally exactly what the GP post explains. If the funds distributed as UBI are the funds redirected from replaced programs, the costs are, by definition, the same.
> That would only happen if by luck the same number of people applied to basic income as previously applied for means-tested benefits.
No, it wouldn't. You are assuming equal per beneficiary per time period total benefit + administrative costs.
> Also, even if you have some new funding source, the system would have potentially huge liabilities if lots of people decide to sign up for it.
No, its not dependent on people who "decide to sign up for" since, by definition, an unconditional income is given unconditionally to every member of the target population; that's part of the basic calculation of the benefit that can be given at any funding level.
Isn't becoming part of the target population essentially the same thing as signing up?
If the cost remained exactly the same, then either you spread similar benefits across a similar group size, or you spread greatly reduced benefits over a much larger group of people, to the point where it's no longer a living "wage".
If the cost remained exactly the same, then either you spread similar benefits across a similar group size, or you spread greatly reduced benefits over a much larger group of people, to the point where it's no longer a living "wage".
> Isn't becoming part of the target population essentially the same thing as signing up?
Its a lot more predictable than "requests", especially if the target population is something like adult citizens and legal permanent residents.
> If the cost remained exactly the same, then either you spread similar benefits across a similar group size, or you spread greatly reduced benefits over a much larger group of people, to the point where it's no longer a living "wage".
Yes, the cost neutral version would be reduced maximum benefit in the short term (though, again, you make the mistake of assuming that the full cost is just benefits, and ignore changes in administrative overhead), while the budget-neutral-by-increased-revenue versions might retain similar maximum benefits.
Its a lot more predictable than "requests", especially if the target population is something like adult citizens and legal permanent residents.
> If the cost remained exactly the same, then either you spread similar benefits across a similar group size, or you spread greatly reduced benefits over a much larger group of people, to the point where it's no longer a living "wage".
Yes, the cost neutral version would be reduced maximum benefit in the short term (though, again, you make the mistake of assuming that the full cost is just benefits, and ignore changes in administrative overhead), while the budget-neutral-by-increased-revenue versions might retain similar maximum benefits.
> Its a lot more predictable than "requests", especially if the target population is something like adult citizens and legal permanent residents.
In that case it would basically just be removing all welfare and giving everyone a tax-cut.
In that case it would basically just be removing all welfare and giving everyone a tax-cut.
> How can they be cost neutral? That would only happen if by luck the same number of people applied to basic income as previously applied for means-tested benefits.
In addition to the other points being made (about new funding sources), you're assuming the payout for basic income would exactly match previous means-tested benefits. Realistically spending, any basic income program will likely provide less than the upper end of many existing entitlement programs.
In addition to the other points being made (about new funding sources), you're assuming the payout for basic income would exactly match previous means-tested benefits. Realistically spending, any basic income program will likely provide less than the upper end of many existing entitlement programs.
Part of the idea is that with a basic income, there's no longer a need for many "social safety net" programs: disability, social security, food stamps, medicaid, etc. The money saved eliminating all these programs (and their nontrivial overhead) can be used to give everyone a modest basic income.
I'm not sure if this is true or not. You can find serious people with reasonable seeming numbers on both sides of that argument.
I'm not sure if this is true or not. You can find serious people with reasonable seeming numbers on both sides of that argument.
> The money saved eliminating all these programs (and their nontrivial overhead) can be used to give everyone a modest basic income.
This isn't really the case. Basic income is not about cost savings.
The programs you mention are wealth transfers, so the overhead is in fact trivial. They take money from person A, and give it to person B. There are checks in place to make sure person B qualifies, which accounts for the overhead. For retirement transfer (social security), you check each persons age--not too hard in America.
All those programs would have to be colossally, amazingly inefficient for basic income to be more efficient at redistributing wealth. Out of it's over $1 trillion budget, estimates of administrative overhead are around 1%. Even for more complex programs like foodstamps, overhead is likely low and under 10% [1].
Basic income is about wealth re-distribution, not efficiency. It applies a huge tax increase to the top 10-20% of society, and gives that money to the bottom 80-90%. It's that simple.
So the question everyone should ask is: should we have a policy of taking money from the top 10%, and giving it to the bottom 90%?
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-blumenthal/food-stamp-my... (not the most reliable source, but best I could find quickly)
This isn't really the case. Basic income is not about cost savings.
The programs you mention are wealth transfers, so the overhead is in fact trivial. They take money from person A, and give it to person B. There are checks in place to make sure person B qualifies, which accounts for the overhead. For retirement transfer (social security), you check each persons age--not too hard in America.
All those programs would have to be colossally, amazingly inefficient for basic income to be more efficient at redistributing wealth. Out of it's over $1 trillion budget, estimates of administrative overhead are around 1%. Even for more complex programs like foodstamps, overhead is likely low and under 10% [1].
Basic income is about wealth re-distribution, not efficiency. It applies a huge tax increase to the top 10-20% of society, and gives that money to the bottom 80-90%. It's that simple.
So the question everyone should ask is: should we have a policy of taking money from the top 10%, and giving it to the bottom 90%?
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-blumenthal/food-stamp-my... (not the most reliable source, but best I could find quickly)
Even for Social Security old age benefits, the overhead is a lot more than just checking someone's age. Benefits depend upon how much income someone had during his working years. So those records have to be checked. You also have to make sure people don't get fraudulent benefits.
And that's just for old age benefits. For Social Security disability, you have to make sure someone is disabled. For unemployment, you have to make sure they worked in the first place, that they lost their job in a manner that garners them benefits, and their benefit size depends on what their pay was.
Making all this work takes bureaucrats, judges to adjudicate claims, and people to investigate fraud. I have no idea whether UBI would be dramatically more efficient but even something like Social Security is far more complex than just checking someone's age.
And that's just for old age benefits. For Social Security disability, you have to make sure someone is disabled. For unemployment, you have to make sure they worked in the first place, that they lost their job in a manner that garners them benefits, and their benefit size depends on what their pay was.
Making all this work takes bureaucrats, judges to adjudicate claims, and people to investigate fraud. I have no idea whether UBI would be dramatically more efficient but even something like Social Security is far more complex than just checking someone's age.
I agree with you, taxes on the top are required no matter what. BI has other problems but I thought one of the other benefits of it was that it reduces fraud. You can't game the system as much.
Needs based systems are easily defeated and then some of give you money based on your "need". This means you get more than you should (and presumably more than BI would provide). I actually think the best BI approach is like an EITC on steroids. You get all your money back if you are at the super low end and you can also make that a multiplier to encourage filling of lower wage jobs.
What I mean by that is that if someone makes $15K a year, they may get 20K + $10K (2/3 earnings) back as a refund (could be quarterly, etc.) Someone who makes $0K a year would just get the $10K. Not well thought out yet but illustrating approach.
Needs based systems are easily defeated and then some of give you money based on your "need". This means you get more than you should (and presumably more than BI would provide). I actually think the best BI approach is like an EITC on steroids. You get all your money back if you are at the super low end and you can also make that a multiplier to encourage filling of lower wage jobs.
What I mean by that is that if someone makes $15K a year, they may get 20K + $10K (2/3 earnings) back as a refund (could be quarterly, etc.) Someone who makes $0K a year would just get the $10K. Not well thought out yet but illustrating approach.
So so for the sake of political simplicity ,why not just say to the bottom 80% -"let's greatly raise taxes for the rich, and than let's discuss about how to use it to help society "? Sounds like a great political promise.
Or maybe there's a problem ?
Or maybe there's a problem ?
The problem is that if you say that, "the rich", who control more economic power than the bottom 80%, will expend considerable resources to discredit your ideas and you personally, and you won't get elected.
We have a democratic republic in theory, but very much a plutocratic one in practice.
We have a democratic republic in theory, but very much a plutocratic one in practice.
Yet the candidate who basically ran on that platform didn't even make it past the primary while someone doing the opposite is now president.
Politics isn't rational.
Politics isn't rational.
Right.. Basic income essentially wants to take mone out of the pot currently reserved for the needy and disabled, and distribute it to able-bodied people who choose not to enter the work force.
It would arguably also encourage people to enter the work force, by removing the welfare traps that can, all too often, make people who switch from benefits to paid work worse off.
There's also a distinction to be made between "not working" and "not in paid employment". Carers, OSS devs etc can add value to society without ever showing up in employment stats.
There's also a distinction to be made between "not working" and "not in paid employment". Carers, OSS devs etc can add value to society without ever showing up in employment stats.
You could just take that money and give it to a million other causes more socially valuable than distributing BI to everyone.
Heck just think what some of this could do to research.
Heck just think what some of this could do to research.
> You could just take that money and give it to a million other causes more socially valuable than distributing BI to everyone.
You're thinking of it as extra money. Try thinking of it instead as money that's already being paid to everyone, just made unconditional. People are not (generally) starving in the streets, so the money is clearly being spent to keep them alive. Some of that is via benefits, which BI would replace. Some of it is via pay-for-work, and given a BI employers could pay less with the BI making up the difference. You can make a separate argument about whether a BI removes incentives to work, but AIUI evidence from pilot programs so far suggests that it doesn't.
> Heck just think what some of this could do to research.
How many of the famous names in science were able to make their discoveries because they belonged to a gentry class who didn't have to work for a living? How many people have to leave academic research because they can't get funding any more? What tends to happen to OSS contribution rates once people move from study to full-time work?
You're thinking of it as extra money. Try thinking of it instead as money that's already being paid to everyone, just made unconditional. People are not (generally) starving in the streets, so the money is clearly being spent to keep them alive. Some of that is via benefits, which BI would replace. Some of it is via pay-for-work, and given a BI employers could pay less with the BI making up the difference. You can make a separate argument about whether a BI removes incentives to work, but AIUI evidence from pilot programs so far suggests that it doesn't.
> Heck just think what some of this could do to research.
How many of the famous names in science were able to make their discoveries because they belonged to a gentry class who didn't have to work for a living? How many people have to leave academic research because they can't get funding any more? What tends to happen to OSS contribution rates once people move from study to full-time work?
I believe the basic idea is to use that able-bodied distribution as an excuse to heavily raise taxes, with the goal being that the needy and disabled would not receive less. The logic being that if everyone has a safety net, we don't need to reward people as much since they now have lower risk.
Personally I don't believe that would actually happen, but the idea does account for that angle.
Personally I don't believe that would actually happen, but the idea does account for that angle.
There's nothing inherently wrong with not entering the workforce in the post-scarcity society we are rapidly approaching. People can instead choose to spend time raising their children, practicing a hobby, or trying to start their own business without fear of not being able to support themselves.
Most humans naturally don't want to sidle idle all their lives, some will, but the vast majority will find some productive use of their time - a basic income means they don't have to work 40 hours a week just to survive so they can do what they really want to do in their spare hours.
Most humans naturally don't want to sidle idle all their lives, some will, but the vast majority will find some productive use of their time - a basic income means they don't have to work 40 hours a week just to survive so they can do what they really want to do in their spare hours.
...a basic income means they don't have to work 40 hours a week just to survive so they can do what they really want to do in their spare hours.
The data suggests that men, at least, really want to watch TV and take drugs. They don't spend much time raising children or on civic engagement.
Here is a good survey article:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21...
If you want to say "that isn't a true Scotsman/basic income", please explain how writing "basic income" at the top of the check would change things.
The data suggests that men, at least, really want to watch TV and take drugs. They don't spend much time raising children or on civic engagement.
Here is a good survey article:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21...
If you want to say "that isn't a true Scotsman/basic income", please explain how writing "basic income" at the top of the check would change things.
I'm assuming you intend to reference the discussion of disability benefits late in that article; the key difference between that and basic income is that disability benefits are received by people who are judged to be occupationally disabled, which fall into two groups:
(1) People who have worked and are actually physically unable to do so any longer (and, generally, for the same reason, inhibited in other important life functions), and
(2) People who wish not to work so much that they have engaged in elaborate frauds to be adjudicated unable to work.
And, in both cases, actually receiving money from work reduces their eligibility for payments and may jeopardize their eligibility to receive benefits at all.
I think its quite reasonable to believe that neither of those (nor the two combined) would be representative in their use of money and their actions when receiving a certain amount of money, on top of the fact that receiving money which is partially conditioned on non-work induces different behaviors (even in the same set of people) than receiving unconditional funds.
(1) People who have worked and are actually physically unable to do so any longer (and, generally, for the same reason, inhibited in other important life functions), and
(2) People who wish not to work so much that they have engaged in elaborate frauds to be adjudicated unable to work.
And, in both cases, actually receiving money from work reduces their eligibility for payments and may jeopardize their eligibility to receive benefits at all.
I think its quite reasonable to believe that neither of those (nor the two combined) would be representative in their use of money and their actions when receiving a certain amount of money, on top of the fact that receiving money which is partially conditioned on non-work induces different behaviors (even in the same set of people) than receiving unconditional funds.
The article discuss the fact that most of those who are consuming disability benefits are not, in fact, physically unable to work.
This is readily apparent from the fact that disability claims are strongly correlated with the economy; recessions do not cause people to become paraplegics. And this rise is in spite of workplaces and daily life becoming safer.
NPR also has an expose on rampant disability fraud, although they of course use more polite language: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
This is readily apparent from the fact that disability claims are strongly correlated with the economy; recessions do not cause people to become paraplegics. And this rise is in spite of workplaces and daily life becoming safer.
NPR also has an expose on rampant disability fraud, although they of course use more polite language: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
> The article discuss the fact that most of those who are consuming disability benefits are not, in fact, physically unable to work.
That's a non-sequitur, as the distribution between group (1) and group (2) in the GP post is immaterial to the argument made there.
If you want to address the points actually made in the post you are responding to instead of throwing out irrelevancies, feel free to do so.
That's a non-sequitur, as the distribution between group (1) and group (2) in the GP post is immaterial to the argument made there.
If you want to address the points actually made in the post you are responding to instead of throwing out irrelevancies, feel free to do so.
But is it the possibility of starving that motivates men to work today? I don't think so. It's the drive for a mate that motivates men to get off the couch, and that won't change.
Perhaps if they weren't facing such grim futures, they'd be a bit less prone to escapism?
As a note to the post-scarcity society looming, the 'humans must work 40 hours or they're not worth anything' is a recent development... Working times in middle ages was much more leisurely: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_w... -- Including average working days to be 150-175 depending on the century.. W/ robotics, etc...why can't we move back to that..
I think a parent should always be home with child, whether mom or dad. -- I see a rise in home schooling and learning through other ways than schools. A marriage of pre-industrialism and post-scarcity w/ the ability to spend free time coding and working on entrepreneurism, or scientific discovery sounds a lot better than working 9-6 5 days a week to make the next Bill Gates or Mark Z. rich.
I think a parent should always be home with child, whether mom or dad. -- I see a rise in home schooling and learning through other ways than schools. A marriage of pre-industrialism and post-scarcity w/ the ability to spend free time coding and working on entrepreneurism, or scientific discovery sounds a lot better than working 9-6 5 days a week to make the next Bill Gates or Mark Z. rich.
Apologies if I'm coming from too far behind in the conversation, but I have a question about your post-scarcity assumption.
It seems to me that in most societies, human populations continue to grow until they hit some hard resource barrier. And it's not a simple, gentle equilibrium that's reached: we usually end up with poverty and/or war as a result.
How would you reconcile my take on human nature with your expectation of post-scarcity?
It seems to me that in most societies, human populations continue to grow until they hit some hard resource barrier. And it's not a simple, gentle equilibrium that's reached: we usually end up with poverty and/or war as a result.
How would you reconcile my take on human nature with your expectation of post-scarcity?
The human population seems to be stabilizing actually, with dramatically decreased infant mortality most parents these days focus on one or two kids instead of three or more - this is even more prevalent in more educated populations.
Finland, for example had more deaths than births last year. I wouldn't be surprised if the population of the human race shrinks over the next century.
Finland, for example had more deaths than births last year. I wouldn't be surprised if the population of the human race shrinks over the next century.
The conflict here is that humans are animals, and animals evolved to use the minimum amount of energy possible to satisfy their needs. Yes you can learn the reward of willfully working hard, but I'm not sure whether everyone, or even most people, will make that transition.
In a post scarcity world why would most people need to? The whole point is that technology is about to make it possible to satisfy everyone's needs with minimum human energy and instead of reveling in it, we seem to be planning to de facto kill all the extra people we used to need with poverty.
If 3/4 of everyone wants to watch TV and take fun drugs and our society has the wealth to allow that to happen, hooray!
If 3/4 of everyone wants to watch TV and take fun drugs and our society has the wealth to allow that to happen, hooray!
Human beings also waste energy on frivolous things, recreation is not generally a trait shared by most animals - yet humans spend a fair amount of time just doing nothing productive or required for our survival.
The same is true for work, while many people are forced to take whatever job they can to survive - there's no reason they wouldn't choose to punch a clock because they enjoy it.
I wouldn't mind working less, but I love what I do, I get a sense of pride and accomplishment out of it - if it weren't required for my survival I wouldn't suddenly stop.
The same is true for work, while many people are forced to take whatever job they can to survive - there's no reason they wouldn't choose to punch a clock because they enjoy it.
I wouldn't mind working less, but I love what I do, I get a sense of pride and accomplishment out of it - if it weren't required for my survival I wouldn't suddenly stop.
So the people who get out and work every day are supposed to support the people who want to "practice a hobby." People who get out and work find this repugnant and that's why UBI is a non-starter.
>So the people who get out and work every day are supposed to support the people who want to "practice a hobby."
Only if they choose to. Everyone will receive the basic income, those who wish (and are able to) to supplement this income by working will be free to do so.
>People who get out and work find this repugnant
Working people will cease to exist as the majority in the not-so-distant future. There needs to be a solution for humans no longer being able to add value in the workplace.
Only if they choose to. Everyone will receive the basic income, those who wish (and are able to) to supplement this income by working will be free to do so.
>People who get out and work find this repugnant
Working people will cease to exist as the majority in the not-so-distant future. There needs to be a solution for humans no longer being able to add value in the workplace.
One should also add that a hobby can be productive. A UBI could result in a revival of the arts and crafts: painters, sculptors, woodworkers, etc - all of which could be economically and culturally productive.
I wouldn't choose to stop coding, personally - it is one of my passions, but in a society with a UBI I could see cutting hours and spending more time with my daughter, fishing, etc.
I wouldn't choose to stop coding, personally - it is one of my passions, but in a society with a UBI I could see cutting hours and spending more time with my daughter, fishing, etc.
Awesome. Nice of other people to get out and work so that you can go fishing.
No need for the hostile tone. The push for a UBI is directly tied with increasing automation in virtually all sectors, there's going to be less work to go around as we go forward - is it really fair to judge someone for being okay with taking more time for themselves when there's less for them to do?
I would go crazy if I didn't have code to write, it's not like I'll ever stop working if I wasn't forced to - but I wouldn't mind to cut back my week and spend time on my own endeavors if it wouldn't be a crushing blow financially.
I would go crazy if I didn't have code to write, it's not like I'll ever stop working if I wasn't forced to - but I wouldn't mind to cut back my week and spend time on my own endeavors if it wouldn't be a crushing blow financially.
So my point stands. The working people are supporting the hobbyists. Even if you are not working, someone is producing your food and your clothes and shelter. That stuff does not become "free" merely because "robots made work redundant" or "everyone gets free UBI" or some other nonsense. In any society, some people carry the water while others drink it. The idea of UBI is that someone should be able to practice a hobby while others labor to feed him and clothe him. This is a fringe notion that those who work find repugnant.
Currently rich societies support many people who drink the water while carrying none. But the social contract is that they get state support because they are elderly or infirm or disabled or simply down on their luck. There is no widespread support for the idea that people are entitled to carry no water and, moreover, to live a leisurely life of hobby, merely because they were lucky enough to be born in a rich country.
Currently rich societies support many people who drink the water while carrying none. But the social contract is that they get state support because they are elderly or infirm or disabled or simply down on their luck. There is no widespread support for the idea that people are entitled to carry no water and, moreover, to live a leisurely life of hobby, merely because they were lucky enough to be born in a rich country.
You keep referencing human labor, so you aren't getting it. There won't be a meaningful number of people working in the future because humans will add less value to the market than automation. I won't try to predict when the human unemployment "tipping point" occurs, but it will occur.
What is your proposed solution for when the market economy collapses due to demand side economics ceasing to exist?
What is your proposed solution for when the market economy collapses due to demand side economics ceasing to exist?
History is full of people making ridiculous claims like this. Years ago no one would have imagined that anyone would work in a society like ours, where extraordinary efficient agriculture means everyone can eat. But people still work, because things like better healthcare and iPhones have a cost.
Human wants will expand to fill humankind's greater productive output, just as it has in the past. So I do "get it." I just think you're wrong.
Human wants will expand to fill humankind's greater productive output, just as it has in the past. So I do "get it." I just think you're wrong.
> So the people who get out and work every day are supposed to support the people who want to "practice a hobby."
No, those passively receiving gains from capital are supposed to do that, and the revenue structure supporting any sane UBI proposal should reflect that.
No, those passively receiving gains from capital are supposed to do that, and the revenue structure supporting any sane UBI proposal should reflect that.
Or, alternatively, it wants to take money out of the pot currently reserved for people best able to game the existing complex and flawed systems, and distribute it everyone fairly, including those who need it (some small number of whom currently "fall through the cracks").
I'm a huge fan of the concept of a universal basic income, but I don't see how it can be a replacement for social programs for basic necessities like food stamps.
There will always be people out there who will choose to blow their entire paycheck on frivolous purchases outside of their means and not have any money left over at the end of the month for food. As stupid and irresponsible they are for making that choice, a humane, post-scarcity society shouldn't just let those people just starve to death on the streets as a consequence.
As a much more charitable example, consider the case of someone getting into an accident and ending up having to spend all or most of their basic income on medical expenses. How could someone like this survive if the basic income were to completely replace all existing social programs?
So basic income will have to coexist with these existing programs. Perhaps the existing programs can be reduced in scale due to less people needing to rely on them thanks to the introduction of a basic income, but probably not nearly enough to completely offset the immense costs of the basic income program itself.
This means the overall expenditure for social programs will likely have to increase due to the introduction of a universal basic income, and I personally am perfectly fine with increasing tax rates on the rich to make that happen, but it's not going to be easy.
There will always be people out there who will choose to blow their entire paycheck on frivolous purchases outside of their means and not have any money left over at the end of the month for food. As stupid and irresponsible they are for making that choice, a humane, post-scarcity society shouldn't just let those people just starve to death on the streets as a consequence.
As a much more charitable example, consider the case of someone getting into an accident and ending up having to spend all or most of their basic income on medical expenses. How could someone like this survive if the basic income were to completely replace all existing social programs?
So basic income will have to coexist with these existing programs. Perhaps the existing programs can be reduced in scale due to less people needing to rely on them thanks to the introduction of a basic income, but probably not nearly enough to completely offset the immense costs of the basic income program itself.
This means the overall expenditure for social programs will likely have to increase due to the introduction of a universal basic income, and I personally am perfectly fine with increasing tax rates on the rich to make that happen, but it's not going to be easy.
Obviously if the same money is spread among more people, some people will receive less than they used to. If social security isn't enough to live on, replacing it with basic income could be worse. Eliminating bureaucratic overhead helps but it's not clear how much.
I have the same concern. I've heard arguments, but none that adequately address the issue.
While I'm a fan of the idea of adopting basic income eventually, I don't see how we can fund it now without serious negative consequences.
Unfortunately the studies I've read about here on HN (including this one I'm guessing) seem to only address the positive side without actually comparing costs vs benefits.
While I'm a fan of the idea of adopting basic income eventually, I don't see how we can fund it now without serious negative consequences.
Unfortunately the studies I've read about here on HN (including this one I'm guessing) seem to only address the positive side without actually comparing costs vs benefits.
Every time I do the math for BI people I never get upvotes, so it never gets attention. Yes, one day in the far future basic income will work, but right now even assuming nobody that is currently working will stop working, it will cost a _ton_ of money. Especially from the top part of the tax bracket.
Great! That's the point. People in my tax bracket should be paying vastly more in taxes.
People who lobby for basic income certainly shouldn't pussyfoot around the notion that it's fundamentally a redistributive tax.
My goal is to eliminate poverty for US citizens who don't insist on living in extremely high cost areas. Secondary goals are to enable the poor to refuse to do bullshit jobs, and undermine the deeply-held notion that wage work is ennobling.
The only way to achieve such redistribution is now, as it has always been, to tax rich people like me.
People who lobby for basic income certainly shouldn't pussyfoot around the notion that it's fundamentally a redistributive tax.
My goal is to eliminate poverty for US citizens who don't insist on living in extremely high cost areas. Secondary goals are to enable the poor to refuse to do bullshit jobs, and undermine the deeply-held notion that wage work is ennobling.
The only way to achieve such redistribution is now, as it has always been, to tax rich people like me.
Hey I'm there with you. I'd rather people in the 1% pay 80% taxes instead of 40% taxes, but the reality is that very, very, very few people in the 1% think like we do, and a good number people in the upper middle class and middle class are going to be worse off as well. It's obviously the long term solution, but it's not politically palatable yet.
Basic income would solve that problem too, by replacing the state pension programs.
(The US has very few real pension programs any more, since the 401(k) and IRA systems were put into effect and displaced them.)
(The US has very few real pension programs any more, since the 401(k) and IRA systems were put into effect and displaced them.)
I don't see this happening. Basic income will be a terribly spartan existence (I estimate not more than $650/person/month with pretty generous guessestimating).
Anyone who works for the government (including teaching & military) with retirement benefits is not going to subsist on just UBI once they stop working.
Anyone who works for the government (including teaching & military) with retirement benefits is not going to subsist on just UBI once they stop working.
This all depends on how many jobs are displaced due to automation, if 40% of our workforce ends up unemployed due to robots taking over their jobs it doesn't seem unreasonable to take 30% of the GDP to supply a BI program (which would give roughly 1/2 the median income to each person in the country if my math was right).
30% of GDP is almost double[1] the entire federal tax receipts currently. That means you're going to need to raise taxes to between 2x and 2.5x their current level in order to institute a program of that magnitude.
That does meet my bar of "unreasonable".
[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
That does meet my bar of "unreasonable".
[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
He's talking about a scenario where 40% is unemployed due to automation, that's pretty apocalyptic. If that can be dealt with pretty well with only a 2.5x raise in tax levels, that sounds good to me.
Taking federal taxes to 2.5x their current levels takes the top marginal rate over 100%, and that's before any state or local taxes are added.
Mathematically, that makes no sense.
Mathematically, that makes no sense.
> Taking federal taxes to 2.5x their current levels takes the top marginal rate over 100%,
You are confusing "federal taxes" with "federal income taxes" and assuming the only way to increase the latter is to multiply the existing marginal rates without changing the structure; since a one portion of the drive for UBI is to address concentration of returns in high-end income and capital gains, the natural first thing to do is to uncap payroll/self-employment taxes and tax capital income the same as labor income (both the taxes on labor income styled as "income tax" and those styled as "payroll tax". That -- alone -- more than doubles taxes on long-term capital gains.)
There's also other income that excluded from taxation or taxed favorably that is concentrated at the high-end that could be targetted.
You are confusing "federal taxes" with "federal income taxes" and assuming the only way to increase the latter is to multiply the existing marginal rates without changing the structure; since a one portion of the drive for UBI is to address concentration of returns in high-end income and capital gains, the natural first thing to do is to uncap payroll/self-employment taxes and tax capital income the same as labor income (both the taxes on labor income styled as "income tax" and those styled as "payroll tax". That -- alone -- more than doubles taxes on long-term capital gains.)
There's also other income that excluded from taxation or taxed favorably that is concentrated at the high-end that could be targetted.
Increasing tax on company profits is the more likely way of going about this instead of targeting the income tax specifically.
This whole theory hinges on automation taking a significant bite out of the workforce, which will raise profits in direct proportion to lower costs. If companies aren't paying their employees anymore, a portion of their proceeds should go to paying back society as a whole - after all, if there's nobody to buy their product then they are dead as a company.
This whole theory hinges on automation taking a significant bite out of the workforce, which will raise profits in direct proportion to lower costs. If companies aren't paying their employees anymore, a portion of their proceeds should go to paying back society as a whole - after all, if there's nobody to buy their product then they are dead as a company.
If fewer and fewer people work, it makes sense to tax other things than income from work. Like capital gains.
This is not much different than the transition from agricultural to industrial age.
If 40% end up unemployed as a result of automation, then there should be a significant increase in new jobs in the automation industry.
The solution is retraining programs. Paying displaced workers UBI while they're retraining is a compassionate temporary solution, but not long-term.
If 40% end up unemployed as a result of automation, then there should be a significant increase in new jobs in the automation industry.
The solution is retraining programs. Paying displaced workers UBI while they're retraining is a compassionate temporary solution, but not long-term.
Except there won't be jobs in this future. None. There will come a day when medical doctors, lawyers, and even computer programming can be done by AI, and automation. You can't retrain a workforce for a job that doesn't exist. Robot maintenance maybe? Not when robots repair robots/themselves.. Sounds sci-fi now, but it's looming.
Do away with minimum wage laws (no longer needed and no longer desirable with a UBI program in place, IMO), and 40% of the workforce won't end up unemployed/unemployable.
I'm fine with eliminating the minimum wage in a society with a UBI, wokers will be able to compete purely on value and wages will reflect as much - but the UBI needs to actually be a livable amount and not below current poverty / minimum wage levels.
> Basic income would solve that problem too, by replacing the state pension programs.
This doesn't actually fit very well with the conceptual basis of UBI as a replacement for means-tested benefit programs, as defined-benefit pensions are not means-tested benefits.
Though its true that a number (though not all) UBI proponents have either explicitly called for replacing existing Social Security-style retirement programs, or implicitly suggested that by including the existing cost of those programs as funds available for UBI.
This doesn't actually fit very well with the conceptual basis of UBI as a replacement for means-tested benefit programs, as defined-benefit pensions are not means-tested benefits.
Though its true that a number (though not all) UBI proponents have either explicitly called for replacing existing Social Security-style retirement programs, or implicitly suggested that by including the existing cost of those programs as funds available for UBI.
Nonsense. Since when did not having money to pay existing obligations stop lawmakers from legislating new unpaid handouts?
This is Y Combinator giving people money, not a state actor. It is probably(or should be) unconstitutional for the US to provide basic income, though the state of California might be able to.
The production version of basic income is clearly government-based. YC is doing a private beta to decide whether to lobby governments to provide basic income.
Basic income (including its funding stream) can be implemented as an income tax with a fixed refundable credit per qualified individual [0], so its unmistakably exactly as Constitutional as federal income tax.
[0] E.g., if you decide that the UBI goes to all adult citizens and legal permanent residents, then that's the population that gets the credit.
[0] E.g., if you decide that the UBI goes to all adult citizens and legal permanent residents, then that's the population that gets the credit.
They certainly have the power to collect the tax money required, and the Social Security SCOTUS case(Helvering v. Davis) sets a pretty good starting point for their power to spend.
I'd argue that while they have the power to spend the money on a wide variety of social programs(per the General Welfare clause), they don't have the power to redistribute income since it doesn't have a designated purpose. Spending is an exchange of money for services or goods, while UBI would just be an exchange of money.
Even if redistribution was considered a type of spending, the case mentions specific facts that harmed the elderly(employee age limits being the main one). If these mattered to the original case, then giving UBI to young people who choose not to work should be a weaker case, which makes it reasonable for SCOTUS to disagree at least on those examples.
Social Security is a combination of a forced retirement savings plan and a delayed redistribution of income. I don't know if anyone has argued that the redistribution part alone is unconstitutional, but the forced savings part comes from the payout increasing as you put more money in. A UBI would be entirely a redistribution.
A similar argument might apply to cases where the EITC causes a net benefit to be given to someone, but: A. The government could argue that the EITC is intended to benefit the poor, which seems similar to arguing that Social Security benefits the elderly and B. I don't know if anyone has standing to bring a suit, since those cases are probably rare and the damages would be small.
I'd argue that while they have the power to spend the money on a wide variety of social programs(per the General Welfare clause), they don't have the power to redistribute income since it doesn't have a designated purpose. Spending is an exchange of money for services or goods, while UBI would just be an exchange of money.
Even if redistribution was considered a type of spending, the case mentions specific facts that harmed the elderly(employee age limits being the main one). If these mattered to the original case, then giving UBI to young people who choose not to work should be a weaker case, which makes it reasonable for SCOTUS to disagree at least on those examples.
Social Security is a combination of a forced retirement savings plan and a delayed redistribution of income. I don't know if anyone has argued that the redistribution part alone is unconstitutional, but the forced savings part comes from the payout increasing as you put more money in. A UBI would be entirely a redistribution.
A similar argument might apply to cases where the EITC causes a net benefit to be given to someone, but: A. The government could argue that the EITC is intended to benefit the poor, which seems similar to arguing that Social Security benefits the elderly and B. I don't know if anyone has standing to bring a suit, since those cases are probably rare and the damages would be small.
What's the argument for basic income through government being unconstitutional?
For anyone who is interested, I actually recently started a basic income experiment of my own. You can check it out here: https://www.swiftdemand.com/
Essentially the way that it works is that anyone who signs up will receive 100 coins each day and they may be freely traded among users. Ideally over time people will start assigning real world value to the coins and then the daily income you receive from Swift Demand will function exactly how Basic Income is supposed to work. If anyone has any questions or suggestions relating to the service I would love to discuss them.
Essentially the way that it works is that anyone who signs up will receive 100 coins each day and they may be freely traded among users. Ideally over time people will start assigning real world value to the coins and then the daily income you receive from Swift Demand will function exactly how Basic Income is supposed to work. If anyone has any questions or suggestions relating to the service I would love to discuss them.
Interesting idea. The problem with this, though, is the same problem video game economies have with similar systems - people just make extra accounts.
Ensuring a single person has a single account would be a sort of holy grail here for many things. I'd love to hear ideas of a way to make it possible without sharing private information.
Ensuring a single person has a single account would be a sort of holy grail here for many things. I'd love to hear ideas of a way to make it possible without sharing private information.
Yea, the extra account issue is something that I have thought a lot about. My initial plan is to slowly increase the requirements for information. In the very near future I will be making email verification a requirement. After that I will be adding required phone verification as an extra step. Eventually once the service grows large enough I will be forced to start requiring private information to ensure that people are unable to game the system by creating multiple accounts.
I had similar idea few years ago, and my rudimentary solution to this was web of trust. Create a way for every user to have ability to verify that they know another user. The user gets the whole daily allowance only if they are verified by at least 5 verified users. Until they are verified they only get a small percentage of the allowance. Tie this to crypto and you can help pretty decent web of trust that is so badly needed for crypto to be usable with emails
I think this sort of approach is required, but won't be sufficient. If you are going to give away money on the world stage, you will be dealing with both sophisticated, and barbaric efforts to undermine your system. You will have users being tricked, blackmailed, and violently forced into providing false verification.
couldn't you just verify your own alt accounts?
first you need to be fully verified, so you would need to have at least 5 fully verified users vouch for you. System could also implement limits on how often and how many tomes one can verify other users. last but not least yoy could have cost of verification set very high, ie daily allowance paid by both veifier and the verified to the system to make fake verification costly
In order to establish a "one account per human" rule, I think using some form of biometric identifier will be inevitable.
My first attempt would probably be a 600 DPI flatbed scan of both hands, palms down, with a nonce written on them with a marker. But since I am a stinker, the nonce would be a procedurally generated phrase similar to "22Feb2017 @randomhandle 03D6A9C1 #RateMyHands", and my trust would wither in the ensuing user data privacy scandal.
I'm sure someone more mature and responsible than I am could do better with that idea.
If you can determine that a new account has the same hands as an existing account, you can stop depositing into the old one, and continue with the new one. You can start with human eyeball inspection, and work your way up to automated hashes of extracted features.
My first attempt would probably be a 600 DPI flatbed scan of both hands, palms down, with a nonce written on them with a marker. But since I am a stinker, the nonce would be a procedurally generated phrase similar to "22Feb2017 @randomhandle 03D6A9C1 #RateMyHands", and my trust would wither in the ensuing user data privacy scandal.
I'm sure someone more mature and responsible than I am could do better with that idea.
If you can determine that a new account has the same hands as an existing account, you can stop depositing into the old one, and continue with the new one. You can start with human eyeball inspection, and work your way up to automated hashes of extracted features.
I don't want to be too negative, but this seems very meaningless.
I've just given you 5000 morgante points for your comment. I'll give you 5 more tomorrow! Nobody accepts morgante points for anything so it's inherently meaningless.
A basic income program is only interesting if it's actually giving out something of value. Your first step should be to assign value to a new currency, not to start handing it out.
I don't see a plausible path to value for your currency. Fiat currencies derive their value from government. Cryptocurrencies derive it from math. Yours is derived from your "word" that you won't just give yourself half the currency if you feel like it.
Not to mention that you don't seem to have any mechanism in place to ensure 1 person:1 account.
I've just given you 5000 morgante points for your comment. I'll give you 5 more tomorrow! Nobody accepts morgante points for anything so it's inherently meaningless.
A basic income program is only interesting if it's actually giving out something of value. Your first step should be to assign value to a new currency, not to start handing it out.
I don't see a plausible path to value for your currency. Fiat currencies derive their value from government. Cryptocurrencies derive it from math. Yours is derived from your "word" that you won't just give yourself half the currency if you feel like it.
Not to mention that you don't seem to have any mechanism in place to ensure 1 person:1 account.
"I don't want to be too negative, but this seems very meaningless."
It is meanigless but it wouldnt be hard to add some value to these "coins". For example, I can offer that one hour of my time as automation consultant is from today worth 100swifts. All you need is enough people to trust the system and it becomes real currency. after all money is just a way to allow people to trade their time or products without having to barter.
It is meanigless but it wouldnt be hard to add some value to these "coins". For example, I can offer that one hour of my time as automation consultant is from today worth 100swifts. All you need is enough people to trust the system and it becomes real currency. after all money is just a way to allow people to trade their time or products without having to barter.
Sure, but it's a catch-22. If nobody trusts the currency, nobody will offer significant value for it. If nobody offers value for it, then nobody will ever trust it.
If I can buy an hour of your time for this, awesome. Make that offer. I'll take you up on it. Prepare to give me all your working time.
If I can buy an hour of your time for this, awesome. Make that offer. I'll take you up on it. Prepare to give me all your working time.
It does not mean that the price wont change soon;). Or that only limitrd amount of my time will be available for that price. also since you can only get 100swifts per day you can only get one hour of my work per day. of you need something done sooner you wineed to either invite more users to get paid for referral thus increasing number of users, or you will need to buy swifts on the market somewhere. that means you build value of swifts with your fiat currency.
I might actually go for this;)
I just (trivially) opened two accounts. I didn't even have to use a proxy.
Since I have 800 coins now, where should I contact you to cash on on my day of free consulting? I've got some fun projects for you to work on.
> It does not mean that the price wont change soon;).
That's the problem though (that I'm trying to illustrate). All I'm doing is trusting that you'll want to continue to offer this trade, there's no guarantee of that. As it is, I wouldn't even pay $1 for 100 coins, even though your time is almost certainly worth more than that.
Since I have 800 coins now, where should I contact you to cash on on my day of free consulting? I've got some fun projects for you to work on.
> It does not mean that the price wont change soon;).
That's the problem though (that I'm trying to illustrate). All I'm doing is trusting that you'll want to continue to offer this trade, there's no guarantee of that. As it is, I wouldn't even pay $1 for 100 coins, even though your time is almost certainly worth more than that.
Obviously currently swifts are not worth anything so you will not be able to hire me using this "currency",but I dont see why this currency with few changes could not have a real value.
I tried to make a service to pay with swiftdemand
If you are interested, please try it.
http://ameblo.jp/toshi-atm-yamato/entry-12249882284.html
#Toshiatyamato
http://ameblo.jp/toshi-atm-yamato/entry-12249882284.html
#Toshiatyamato
A few years ago a bitcoin startup gave every MIT student one bitcoin to ivest or spend as they please. I never heard the followup of this project.
This is an interesting experiment. The one thing that people keep talking about is that with BI, people will have the freedom to do more things. Some might start a business (but that still usually requires additional extra money) or they might do things like volunteer or teach a class or help others.
I just had the thought that what if there was a currency that flipped it around. Doing good things for others is the only way to earn the currency. It obviously requires controls but then you could exchange it for food at a restaurant that accepts "good". I'm still thinking through a lot of implementation details but it feels like there is something here.
I just had the thought that what if there was a currency that flipped it around. Doing good things for others is the only way to earn the currency. It obviously requires controls but then you could exchange it for food at a restaurant that accepts "good". I'm still thinking through a lot of implementation details but it feels like there is something here.
Interesting that you've created a centralized system. This means that everyone needs to trust you at all times, as there are no miners or active nodes that can "fork" your ledger or ignore your code updates by working off an old/alternative ledger.
This could actually be quite dangerous for you if your project gains any sort of traction. Some unsavory individuals might be quite tempted to harm you to gain access to your digital "mint". If you made any unpopular decisions regarding the rate of inflation, market access, experienced a security issue, etc. you would also be subject to a lot of vitriol and potential violence. Not to mention that the government of any country where this is introduced would probably be itching to shut you down (whether they could would be an entirely different story).
Personally I think the answer to inequality, which is the main issue that BI attempts to solve, lies in tax reform. Especially on the rate at which we tax capital, and the loopholes that allow corporations and wealthy individuals to harbor capital in some low-tax jurisdiction; capital that they could not have earned and accumulated without access to the infrastructure and public services in the nation where they live and conduct business.
I'm glad BI is raising awareness of the problem of inequality, but I think it focuses too much on the wrong side - the distribution of benefits, rather than the taxation of profits. Piketty studied wealth/capital for the better part of 20 years and came to the conclusion that we need a global income tax [1].
For further inspiration on your project RE: fake identities, check out how Auroracoin was "airdropped" to Icelandic citizens, who had to verify their identity with a government-issued ID number to be eligible to collect their coins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auroracoin
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-05-11/picketty-...
This could actually be quite dangerous for you if your project gains any sort of traction. Some unsavory individuals might be quite tempted to harm you to gain access to your digital "mint". If you made any unpopular decisions regarding the rate of inflation, market access, experienced a security issue, etc. you would also be subject to a lot of vitriol and potential violence. Not to mention that the government of any country where this is introduced would probably be itching to shut you down (whether they could would be an entirely different story).
Personally I think the answer to inequality, which is the main issue that BI attempts to solve, lies in tax reform. Especially on the rate at which we tax capital, and the loopholes that allow corporations and wealthy individuals to harbor capital in some low-tax jurisdiction; capital that they could not have earned and accumulated without access to the infrastructure and public services in the nation where they live and conduct business.
I'm glad BI is raising awareness of the problem of inequality, but I think it focuses too much on the wrong side - the distribution of benefits, rather than the taxation of profits. Piketty studied wealth/capital for the better part of 20 years and came to the conclusion that we need a global income tax [1].
For further inspiration on your project RE: fake identities, check out how Auroracoin was "airdropped" to Icelandic citizens, who had to verify their identity with a government-issued ID number to be eligible to collect their coins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auroracoin
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-05-11/picketty-...
>Ideally over time people will start assigning real world value to the coins and then the daily income you receive from Swift Demand will function exactly how Basic Income is supposed to work.
How is this going to happen?
How is this going to happen?
Hopefully the same way that Bitcoin established value. Speculation that the coins will be more valuable in the future. Obviously since the coins are constantly being generated you are never going to have the coins reach values of $1000 each, but it is possible if people suspect eventually they will be worth $0.10 a piece they might try to invest now by buying them at $0.01 a piece. Hopefully after this happens and the currency starts becoming more established it will be able to maintain that value.
You're missing the part about Bitcoin having a fixed rate of inflation. There's nothing to stop you from deciding to totally devalue your currency tomorrow, so it's impossible for people to even speculate on its future value.
From the rest of your comments, I'm curious how much research you've actually done into economics and currency. A currency which is being constantly and unpredictably printed is the opposite of stable.
From the rest of your comments, I'm curious how much research you've actually done into economics and currency. A currency which is being constantly and unpredictably printed is the opposite of stable.
>Hopefully the same way that Bitcoin established value.
Bitcoins value fluctuates so fast that no one really knows how much something real costs in bitcoin on any given day.
As a result, even though Bitcoins are surprisingly valuable, as a currency it has very low velocity. Bitcoin is closer to gold, real estate or shares than it is to dollars. It makes an ok place[1] to park your value in the hopes that it'll beat inflation, but much like gold and houses it's extremely difficult to directly buy something with it.
You need to find a way to make your project a high velocity currency. I don't know how to do that though. Good luck :)
[1] Your mileage may vary. I personally wouldn't invest in bitcoin because it's too volatile for me to be bothered tracking it, but some have done so with success.
Bitcoins value fluctuates so fast that no one really knows how much something real costs in bitcoin on any given day.
As a result, even though Bitcoins are surprisingly valuable, as a currency it has very low velocity. Bitcoin is closer to gold, real estate or shares than it is to dollars. It makes an ok place[1] to park your value in the hopes that it'll beat inflation, but much like gold and houses it's extremely difficult to directly buy something with it.
You need to find a way to make your project a high velocity currency. I don't know how to do that though. Good luck :)
[1] Your mileage may vary. I personally wouldn't invest in bitcoin because it's too volatile for me to be bothered tracking it, but some have done so with success.
> Bitcoins value fluctuates so fast that no one really knows how much something real costs in bitcoin on any given day.
True.
> ...even though Bitcoins are surprisingly valuable, as a currency it has very low velocity.
Is this part really true any more? Trades of something other than Bitcoin aren't denominated in Bitcoin. But the exchange rate, though variable, is available in realtime and companies like Coinbase take the short term fluctuation risk for traders. It's easy enough now for a seller to say "I will accept $X worth of Bitcoin" and a buyer to say "Sure, here's $X worth of Bitcoin" and for both sides to be happy. Bitcoin clients have UIs that work this way now too.
True.
> ...even though Bitcoins are surprisingly valuable, as a currency it has very low velocity.
Is this part really true any more? Trades of something other than Bitcoin aren't denominated in Bitcoin. But the exchange rate, though variable, is available in realtime and companies like Coinbase take the short term fluctuation risk for traders. It's easy enough now for a seller to say "I will accept $X worth of Bitcoin" and a buyer to say "Sure, here's $X worth of Bitcoin" and for both sides to be happy. Bitcoin clients have UIs that work this way now too.
Yea, you are correct in stating that Bitcoin is much more similar to gold than it is an actual currency. That's one thing that I'm attempting to solve with Swift Demand, since coins are constantly being added to the economy you can't really use them as a long term investment and hope the price will increase. This will ideally lead to the currency having a stable value. As for making the currency move at a high velocity this is definitely one of my primary goals for making Swift Demand successful. My current plan is to implement an easy to use API and then get some online services on board to start accepting the currency to get the economy moving at a healthy speed.
>This will ideally lead to the currency having a stable value.
That's not guaranteed. If I can't spend it on anything, it's monopoly money: regularly printed, but not actually currency.
Monopoly money is a stable state item, too. We've no reason, barring outside influence, to believe that anyone will ever start accepting monopoly money as a currency. The first person that did would be taking tremendous risk; there's an awful lot of monopoly money sitting in peoples cupboards. If they break ranks and no one follows, they'll be left with piles of worthless paper.
If too many of your coins enter circulation before someone starts accepting them as a currency, you could be left in the awkward situation where in order for a merchant to mitigate the risk of accepting your coins, they have to set the price of a loaf of bread so high that no single user of your service actually has enough coins to purchase a loaf.
That's not guaranteed. If I can't spend it on anything, it's monopoly money: regularly printed, but not actually currency.
Monopoly money is a stable state item, too. We've no reason, barring outside influence, to believe that anyone will ever start accepting monopoly money as a currency. The first person that did would be taking tremendous risk; there's an awful lot of monopoly money sitting in peoples cupboards. If they break ranks and no one follows, they'll be left with piles of worthless paper.
If too many of your coins enter circulation before someone starts accepting them as a currency, you could be left in the awkward situation where in order for a merchant to mitigate the risk of accepting your coins, they have to set the price of a loaf of bread so high that no single user of your service actually has enough coins to purchase a loaf.
I didn't see any referral codes on here, so here's mine if anyone else decides to sign up: https://www.swiftdemand.com/users/sign_up?referred_by_name=c...
I've signed up for it. Not sure what I'll do with it yet either but I have some ideas for a webservice to toy with it. Do you have an API of any kind for interacting with the service? (e.g. to see the latest transactions on my account?)
An API is on my todo list. There are three main things I am looking to add in the near future:
An exchange to allow people to trade their coins for normal currency An API to allow businesses to easily hook Swift Demand into their platform Added verification requirements (This one depends on the rate of growth)
An exchange to allow people to trade their coins for normal currency An API to allow businesses to easily hook Swift Demand into their platform Added verification requirements (This one depends on the rate of growth)
Assuming people do assign value to these coins, how do you plan to handle inflation?
Inflation will be handled in by simply increasing the amount of coins given to users. For example if there is a target of 3% inflation YoY then then amount of coins given will be based on that target inflation level. Figuring out the exact numbers will be decided in the future once the service has gained mainstream adoption.
How is the experiment going. Are people using this yet?
You can check out some information on the stats page: https://www.swiftdemand.com/stats
I actually only released the website less than a week ago so it's still incredibly new, but people have already done some cool stuff with it. This guy set up a website to write haikus in exchange for coins http://swiftpoetry.club/
I'm planning on setting up a service to allow people to more easily exchange coins into their local countries currency and develop an API so websites can more easily accept Swift Demand as a payment option, but these things are still in the pipeline.
I actually only released the website less than a week ago so it's still incredibly new, but people have already done some cool stuff with it. This guy set up a website to write haikus in exchange for coins http://swiftpoetry.club/
I'm planning on setting up a service to allow people to more easily exchange coins into their local countries currency and develop an API so websites can more easily accept Swift Demand as a payment option, but these things are still in the pipeline.
Pretty cool! Any plan to open source this thing or give it to community. Would not want to do anything substantial for a swiftcoin if there is a concern that they could be taken away or lost or something.
Shouldn't this be posted in the Who is Hiring thread instead? :P
I suppose that one good way to research BI is by making the national lotteries provide a prize that basically corresponds to a BI, and then make sure that participants agree to partake in the research (e.g., surveys).
Might want to fix this -> https://blog.ycombinator.com/author/elizabeth-rhodes/
Fixed. Thanks for the heads-up!
Hmm, Elizabeth's author profile still show's Matt's info, for me...
The cost of basic income in the United States is about equal to the cost of getting us off permanently off of fossil fuels.
This is going to send heads spinning as we decide which one we care about more, poverty or the environment.
This is going to send heads spinning as we decide which one we care about more, poverty or the environment.
> Hiring for Basic Income
So much irony in just four words. I love it.
So much irony in just four words. I love it.
It is really cowardly to use throwaway account when posting.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13708932 and marked it off-topic.
It is off topic, sorry moderators.
It seems whenever someone wants to say something a little bit controversial or not as mainstream, they use throwaway account. And I think this is not fair. I noticed this in number of discussions. And people like to throw opinions but don't stand behind them.
It seems whenever someone wants to say something a little bit controversial or not as mainstream, they use throwaway account. And I think this is not fair. I noticed this in number of discussions. And people like to throw opinions but don't stand behind them.
500+ days old and 877 karma. Doesn't look like a throwaway. Maybe just an ironic name.
...and? cowards are people too.
Sweet! Where can I sign up to receive my basic income?
One alternative to unconditional basic income would be an presence-based minimum wage. The idea would be not only to replace welfare and social security and other conditional income sources but also replace the idea of the minimum wage with a funded mandate. I'm not sure where this idea came from, though I believe I heard it attributed to Milton Friedman (though I've not been able to find a reference).
The idea would be to have an auditorium, where you would come in and sit and do nothing, and be paid the minimum wage when you leave based only on the amount of time you spent in the room.
Individuals would be free to accept wages lower than the minimum wage for outside jobs, but employers would have to compete with that minimum wage for employees, so any lower wages offered would have to compete in other aspects -- pensions, tips, benefits, opportunities for advancement, etc.
Because this would require physical presence, it would naturally be self-limiting in some aspects of abuse; you can "sit" as many or as few hours as you wish, but you cannot use that time for other productive work, so there's a natural fall-off of benefits as you choose to work instead (rather than an artificial administrative "cliff").
There are other aspects which seem very vulnerable to abuse -- why not just sleep there, what about doing remote work on a laptop, what about setting up shop and selling hot dogs in the room, etc. And there are some aspects which seem logistically problematic -- how do people commute to the room, how many rooms do you need, what about people who have disabilities that prevent them from travelling, etc.
But generally all of these seem addressable, and some of them might just be self-regulating by social norms, so that there is a small but acceptable amount of leakage due to abuse.
It seems administrative simpler in some regards than UBI, in that the uniqueness of a recipient is more easily enforceable, and it doesn't just change the y-intercept of the income curve, but rather semi-truncates it, so might be less vulnerable to attempting to extract the income through rent increases.
It also more easily adjusts to location-based pricing sensitivity -- it's totally reasonable for a place like SF to have a higher "minimum wage" than a less expensive city (just as minimum wages can float from state to state), and the requirement for physical presence makes it harder to game this.
The idea would be to have an auditorium, where you would come in and sit and do nothing, and be paid the minimum wage when you leave based only on the amount of time you spent in the room.
Individuals would be free to accept wages lower than the minimum wage for outside jobs, but employers would have to compete with that minimum wage for employees, so any lower wages offered would have to compete in other aspects -- pensions, tips, benefits, opportunities for advancement, etc.
Because this would require physical presence, it would naturally be self-limiting in some aspects of abuse; you can "sit" as many or as few hours as you wish, but you cannot use that time for other productive work, so there's a natural fall-off of benefits as you choose to work instead (rather than an artificial administrative "cliff").
There are other aspects which seem very vulnerable to abuse -- why not just sleep there, what about doing remote work on a laptop, what about setting up shop and selling hot dogs in the room, etc. And there are some aspects which seem logistically problematic -- how do people commute to the room, how many rooms do you need, what about people who have disabilities that prevent them from travelling, etc.
But generally all of these seem addressable, and some of them might just be self-regulating by social norms, so that there is a small but acceptable amount of leakage due to abuse.
It seems administrative simpler in some regards than UBI, in that the uniqueness of a recipient is more easily enforceable, and it doesn't just change the y-intercept of the income curve, but rather semi-truncates it, so might be less vulnerable to attempting to extract the income through rent increases.
It also more easily adjusts to location-based pricing sensitivity -- it's totally reasonable for a place like SF to have a higher "minimum wage" than a less expensive city (just as minimum wages can float from state to state), and the requirement for physical presence makes it harder to game this.
One of things I hope some sort of UBI-esque program would do is allow people to create value in ways that are currently economically infeasible. This solution stomps on that while keeping one of the worst aspects of our current system, which is feeling stuck in a position where you're creating little value/care very little about the work but are chained to it because of lack of options.
As I've mentioned in other replies, for the same amount of dollars pumped into UBI (where it has to be distributed to the entire populace), this system can distribute that money instead to a much, much smaller segment of the population.
If, say, 10% of people opt to participate in "wasted-work", then each will receive 10x the benefit they would get from UBI, meaning that would be able to afford to save up money, or work part-time and still have sufficient money to support themselves while they pursue the "creation of value in ways that are currently economically infeasible".
UBI sounds great, but on a dollar-for-dollar basis it just seems worse than this because the level of compensation cannot be as high.
If, say, 10% of people opt to participate in "wasted-work", then each will receive 10x the benefit they would get from UBI, meaning that would be able to afford to save up money, or work part-time and still have sufficient money to support themselves while they pursue the "creation of value in ways that are currently economically infeasible".
UBI sounds great, but on a dollar-for-dollar basis it just seems worse than this because the level of compensation cannot be as high.
This seems like the worst possible option. Forcing the time to be "wasted" destroys the potential of doing any creative, productive work, self betterment activities or even taking care of "personal business" such as housework, errands, etc.
The notion of creating a market pressure on minimum wage employers is the only redeeming aspect, but gets there in the most destructive possible fashion I can imagine.
Rating: 1/10, would not recommend.
The notion of creating a market pressure on minimum wage employers is the only redeeming aspect, but gets there in the most destructive possible fashion I can imagine.
Rating: 1/10, would not recommend.
I appreciate the feedback; these are interesting points.
To be clear, though, these are all attributes of the current system. The potential isn't destroyed, it just requires a rational examination of the tradeoffs. And this is assuming that the minimum wage offered here would be far inferior to what someone would get through UBI -- a UBI that amounts to a baseline income of $10,000 a year, for example, is unlikely to inspire hoards of people to become artists or to take classes; they'll likely have to take minimum wage jobs to make up for the price increases that will be associated with the UBI.
Similarly, if the wasted-wage salary level is set to something higher; like if working a 20 hour week would be sufficient to support a family, then I feel like it would provide the benefits that you associate with UBI.
In my mind this is more a question of how much benefit could be provided given that both programs would (theoretically) receive the same funding. Given that most people would not be participating in the "wasted-wage" program, coupled with the reduction in overhead for preventing personal-identity-based fraud, I think bang for the buck you could fund a much higher effective part-time salary with "wasted-wage" instead of UBI.
To be clear, though, these are all attributes of the current system. The potential isn't destroyed, it just requires a rational examination of the tradeoffs. And this is assuming that the minimum wage offered here would be far inferior to what someone would get through UBI -- a UBI that amounts to a baseline income of $10,000 a year, for example, is unlikely to inspire hoards of people to become artists or to take classes; they'll likely have to take minimum wage jobs to make up for the price increases that will be associated with the UBI.
Similarly, if the wasted-wage salary level is set to something higher; like if working a 20 hour week would be sufficient to support a family, then I feel like it would provide the benefits that you associate with UBI.
In my mind this is more a question of how much benefit could be provided given that both programs would (theoretically) receive the same funding. Given that most people would not be participating in the "wasted-wage" program, coupled with the reduction in overhead for preventing personal-identity-based fraud, I think bang for the buck you could fund a much higher effective part-time salary with "wasted-wage" instead of UBI.
One benefit of a mature UBI is that it enables people to do training and other activities which prepare them for jobs in a changing economy, another is that it enables them to attempt entrepreneurial endeavors without risking basic survival.
Both of these are, obviously, lost in a presence-based minimum wage, which also abandons adds additional administrative overhead compared to UBI. AFAICT, this idea is strictly worse in terms of benefit and implementation cost.
Both of these are, obviously, lost in a presence-based minimum wage, which also abandons adds additional administrative overhead compared to UBI. AFAICT, this idea is strictly worse in terms of benefit and implementation cost.
I think I address most of these arguments in my reply to bluenose above.
The claim that this adds administrative overhead and increases implementation cost and decreases benefit in particular I think is incorrect.
Since most people will not participate in the "wasted-work" program (I need a pithy name for this scheme), the benefit per participant can be scaled up considerably from what UBI could provide on an individual basis.
Administratively I think it's probably close to a wash -- UBI has the administrative difficulty of preventing or detecting fraud (duplicate identities in particular), "wasted-work" has the administrative overhead of employing reliable "doormen" for the centers, and the real estate costs (and maintenance, etc.) of the centers, not to mention any administrative costs associated with attempts to fix the problems I highlighted around "commuting costs".
Both programs have the problem of setting the appropriate level of compensation and updating it to reflect changes in cost of living, but as I mentioned, "wasted-work" can be more sensitive to regional variations in the cost of living than UBI can (without a hugely increased administrative overhead).
The claim that this adds administrative overhead and increases implementation cost and decreases benefit in particular I think is incorrect.
Since most people will not participate in the "wasted-work" program (I need a pithy name for this scheme), the benefit per participant can be scaled up considerably from what UBI could provide on an individual basis.
Administratively I think it's probably close to a wash -- UBI has the administrative difficulty of preventing or detecting fraud (duplicate identities in particular), "wasted-work" has the administrative overhead of employing reliable "doormen" for the centers, and the real estate costs (and maintenance, etc.) of the centers, not to mention any administrative costs associated with attempts to fix the problems I highlighted around "commuting costs".
Both programs have the problem of setting the appropriate level of compensation and updating it to reflect changes in cost of living, but as I mentioned, "wasted-work" can be more sensitive to regional variations in the cost of living than UBI can (without a hugely increased administrative overhead).
You're going to have auditoriums full of smelly homeless people whose mere presence discourages others from participating in your program the way they already do with public parks and libraries in low-income areas. Unless you have mental health facilities to take them in in addition to the cash-auditorium you're going to be SOL.
Addressing all the addressable avenues for abuse is also going to be a grim looking situation where you're going to be policing people sitting there to make sure they're not sending e-mails from their phones or having conversations with each other or reading books. Lots of peoples' jobs involve studying or having meetings.
Addressing all the addressable avenues for abuse is also going to be a grim looking situation where you're going to be policing people sitting there to make sure they're not sending e-mails from their phones or having conversations with each other or reading books. Lots of peoples' jobs involve studying or having meetings.
I don't have any particular problems with what you're saying, although it feels like a lot of the abuse around camping and doing work will be offset by the problems of stigma associated with being in one of the centers. That is, there's no need to police people to make sure that they aren't doing outside work or reading, when being in the center itself is not a particularly fun -- people who can afford to not be in the center will most likely choose to spend their time elsewhere.
That may not sound particularly humanitarian, but keep in mind that this also benefits the "smelly homeless people" likely in ways that the current systems (what good is a minimum wage when nobody will hire you) or UBI (what's your mailing address, sir, where we can send the check, or where's your photo ID?) will not.
That may not sound particularly humanitarian, but keep in mind that this also benefits the "smelly homeless people" likely in ways that the current systems (what good is a minimum wage when nobody will hire you) or UBI (what's your mailing address, sir, where we can send the check, or where's your photo ID?) will not.
[deleted]
So with that in mind, how the heck can these countries even consider rolling out a new "basic income" program? Doesn't this seem a bit incongruous?