India floats the idea of a universal basic income

I agree with this sentiment. Looking into the (very long term) future, it's interesting to look at a fictional post-scarcity society (Star Trek) (with a grain of salt - it's really the writer's imaginations and what you see in the movies/shows) and see what the impact would be. My key takeaways are:

* everyone still works, or studies, and the culture is that you still contribute to society rather than sit around and do nothing. This requires a significant culture change from our current society.

* They often visit colonies and planets that are decidedly not post-scarcity - they are often poor or middle-class colonies, with an agricultural bent. In theory this shouldn't be the case in a post-scarcity society, but it becomes apparent that there's still a cost (resources and time) associated with production and transport unless you want to be ruled by AI overlords.

This assumes the existence of a "good" distribution of generated wealth. This tends to not be the case.

How does that factor into your thoughts?

If (a) is true, people will still work (because they want money above their UBI), and will still create progress (i.e. little will change). I'm not sure how (b) connects. Perhaps it assumes people will do less work towards automation under UBI?

I would like to think people will still work on UBI. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage that don't is similar in some respects to drug use in those places where all drugs have be decriminalized (and perhaps similar to true unemployment numbers now). There is a question of what people will do with their freedom to choose what they will do. Would we get more and more creative art? More inventions and entrepreneurs? More things that are "useful" (by whatever metric: technological progress, preservation of the environment, internal well-being e.g.) or less?

Trying to speculate seems fairly silly, though perhaps one could look to history (patronage, for example). I think it'd be even more silly to think we have things right right now (esp. considering fairly objective things like suffering that could be prevented or environmental damage that could be checked) and the idea should be given a shot at least in a limited setting.

Problem 1: the economic notion of value is weighted by wealth, but the notion of "human desire" you discuss is not. Entertaining a king is valuable, in the economic sense, but feeding and housing a poor is not. It doesn't matter if there are plenty of things that people want to be done, it matters if there are plenty of things that people with money want to be done. If all the money flows into a few hands, the demands of the many do not count towards stimulating the economy, and the economy is not stimulated.

Problem 2: leverage. The economic value you create is an upper bound to what you earn, not a lower bound. The lower bound is determined by your next best option, which effectively, in light of correlated risk, means there is no lower bound. The service you provide may be critical to the functioning of society, but if you are easily replaced, well, you aren't going to earn very much. In other words, even if demand increases exponentially forever, and you play a critical role in satisfying that demand, the economy does not guarantee that you will be able to extract money for yourself out of the process. See: crowd of artists trying to pawn their wares off on the king. Also, farmers.

Problem 1 and problem 2 combined are what make the "capitalist dystopia" a plausible, stable, and terrifying state of affairs.

Problem 3: deregulation does not necessarily return markets to a pristine state of natural excellence. No such state exists. Quite the opposite, in many cases. Regulatory capture is a real problem, a big problem, but it's only one of many factors that lead to sclerotic, anti-competitive markets. I'm regularly floored by people's ability to talk about network effects, economies of scale, information asymmetries, moats, winner-takes-all games, and mergers/acquisitions with one breath -- all of which are non-regulatory market forces that suppress competition and innovation -- and then with the next breath assert that deregulation is the most straightforward way to spur innovation and competition. See: Enron, where deregulation of the energy markets led to artificial supply shutdown (the infamous rolling blackouts) in order to drive prices higher and profit. Listen to the recordings of the traders literally giggling as they order plants offline, and tell me again that deregulation is a cure-all. Sometimes more regulation leads to better functioning markets. Utilities are the canonical example.

True - as a whole. But as things stand now, the owners of the machines get richer, and the displaced workers get significantly poorer.

My concern is this. In ten years time, trucks and taxis will be automated, and vanishingly few truck drivers will be able to retrain as truck computer techs. Truck and taxi driving is the last bastion of badly-educated men, (apart from the military, but automation will be gutting military employment too). So we're going to have a huge (many millions) population of (to generalise horribly) redneck men who like guns and feel worthless.

Even now, 2/3s of gun death in the US is that exact demographic suiciding. I believe these guys gave Trump his victory, and when they realise even he's let them down, those that don't kill themselves are going to revolt.

A UBI could be part of the solution to this nightmare, because it would take the economic aspect out of the equation. It would mean unemployment lost its stigma, because at least some people chose to do their own thing (playing music, carving wood, reading at schools) instead of working for the man. So it would become socially acceptable not to have a paying job.

Sadly I think it's very unlikely to happen, unless the rich figure out that their wealth is going to be redistributed violently if they don't do voluntarily.

There is no such thing as trickle down economics. Wealth does not get distributed in equal to its gain, it is distributed based upon many other markets. For example, if your company makes double this year, you're not going to get paid any more than you were, but if what you said was true, you should be getting paid near double. Infact, how much wealth your company makes has little to do with how much you will be paid when it comes to investment. You're going to get paid what you can negotiate for, which will be competative to the market of other individuals. Just because your company is doing good does not mean they're going to pay anywhere near double for their employees when they can get them at market rate, which is always pressured to be lower.

The products also don't have to be cheaper. Infact I don't know of any good examples of automation making things cheaper that aren't just competing with other products. Products do not have to be priced near what they cost to make, as examplified by apple products and tech in general. They're priced to what people give it value, which is manipulated by advertising and patents/copyrights that give them the ability others need or want.

And as this equilibrium shifts in favor of the wealthy, you'll see the effects of inequality get more and more exacerbated. You might even get to a point where the inequality is so extreme, that the "masses" have much more to gain through wealth appropriation, as opposed to wealth creation. And when that point comes, democracy will collapse and give way to a communist or fascist revolution.

Basic income offers an escape valve to the corrosive effects of inequality. It distributes more fairly the fruits of globalisation and automation. It gives every citizen a share in the national prosperity. It gives us all a reason to cheer for the greater good, and not just our own advancement.

Perhaps it is the case that what the market decides is best for people who cannot perform any task more efficiently than a computer is to simply stop being powered.

The more concerning problem which comes up in this article is that you cannot have both UBI and lax immigration/easy freedom of movement. The first country to institute a UBI would be quite appealing to the billions of people living in destitute poverty, and they would all want to emigrate, making it almost impossible to get into the country. How do you decide who gets in? Do you require the person was a citizen for 18 years before qualifying? You certainly can't have open borders or the welfare system would quickly be overrun.

Are you basing this off of any familiarity with poor Indian culture?

Why do you expect "free money" to translate into "lesser progress" rather than "progress of their choice"?

Here's a different question: Have you learned more through self-directed learning, or other-directed learning? How have you chosen what to learn, and would you still have that drive-to-learn if you had free money?

Remember that UBI is in addition to salaries / wages, not instead of.

I don't know if basic income works, but that's why experiments in the field are required. None of the reasons you have pointed out seem to be apply only to India.

Or just spend the money and build it directly.

The idea that UBI should be higher on the priority list than basic infrastructure is pretty crazy.

A lot of money does get earmarked for this purpose, and then gets funneled into the pockets of corrupt officials and politicians. I think that's what this income is supposed to help prevent. It's not the only way -- tracking money flow in general helps.

(The previous demonetization move was also supposed to help accomplish something similar, i.e. track if money is going to corrupt politicians instead of the impoverished people it is meant for.)

I disagree. I believe the better place where one should do this is where it's needed the most.

People tend to believe that when given money, others will just sit back and get lazy doing nothing. Matter of fact is you need money to do anything; to give your children a better education, to buy tools to help you at your job, to buy appliances that free your time to have other projects, etc. Do you think these people are comfortable with their lifestyle? Handing them free money, IMO, more than being an excuse to "hinder progress", will be an investment that finally allow them to get over working to "just survive" and into the realm of working to actually ensure their kids are better off than they were.

This is similar to how YC funds startups. Or in fact, how anyone funds startups. No one says "Oh, if we give you a nice economic cushion, that'll probably hinder your progress, you need to be under the constant stress and problem of having no money to really get clever and do cool things." Of course not, that's nuts. You invest money to make money.

I travelled to India for 3 months some years ago. I could live there with 300 EUR a month in a nice little hotel in Himachal Pradesh no less. I could have gotten a room for just 1 EUR a day which I saw with my own eyes, simple room clean in a Tibetan run building. But this hotel had wifi downstairs which they changed the password only every few days, I had a TV, full size bed, private bathroom and toilet with running water (no carrying buckets or rationing like the people living in the area), etc.

I remember back then, 2010 is not so long ago, I could eat plenty for less than 300 INR a day (so approx. 2-3 EUR). Like a nice bowl of Tibetan noodles was 80 INR if I remember, and that was filling for a third of the day, and that's not even 1 EUR (Of course if I bought a coca cola then I would have paid 100 INR or more).

When a foreigner can live there with 300 EUR a month and be quite comfortable;, just imagine the change of quality of life it makes to people in poverty if they had just 100 EUR a month.

Just to note, Negative Income Tax is mathematically equivalent to UBI, in that given any NIT scheme you can produce a UBI scheme that results in the same income function.

However, I think the framing can make lot of difference here, in terms of expectations, and likely implementation.

A single mother with 2 children needs more money to make ends meet than a single student in their 20s. Subsidies take that into account, the negative income tax does not. People with a physical or mental handicap need assistance. The negative income tax has abolished the programs that help you, so good luck. Pensions? Same. If you've not invested wisely during your working years you'll have to eat dogfood when you're old, because social security is gone.

The problem with the negative income tax is that there's no way to make the math work, because you can't raise the minimum amount every citizen gets high enough so that every citizen can live a dignified life with that amount of money. Not even when you tax the highest earners at 90% does the math work. The special aid programs we have today exist for a reason: they specifically help vulnerable groups in society, who would otherwise be in desperate straits.

Make no mistake: the proponents of the negative income tax want to shrink the government to the size where it can be drowned in a bath tub. It's a far right idea that, if executed, would have horrific consequences for the poor. I urge people on the left of the political spectrum to stop and do some napkin math on how the negative income tax would end up redistributing wealth.

I actually think it is the opposite. UBI might work better precisely because corruption prevents other welfare schemes reaching the target population.

At least in theory, the direct cash transfer should help pull out a lot of people from abject poverty. The article quotes a jump from 22% absolute poverty to 0.5% - if it does that, it would go a long way in accelerating growth in India.

The explicitly stated purpose of UBI here is that it can be implemented via direct electronic transfers to the recipients. That's pretty easy to audit electronically, particularly with biometrics which India is implementing.

In contrast, something like the LPG subsidy (which involves the physical delivery of gas cylinders) is insanely hard to police. How can the central government ensure that cylinders don't go to people who don't need them, that they contain the appropriate amount of gas, etc? It's virtually impossible.

Another anticipated benefit of UBI is that once people are out of desperate poverty there is less incentive to cheat.

(We have seen that paying police officers a living wage is one way of reducing police asking for bribes: I imagine that a similar dynamic would be at play with UBI)

That was probably true before demonetisation.

Okay, it needs some clarification :-)

The free meal is supposed to be for people who need it but can't afford it but not supposed to be on a regular basis - for the destitute and people in general who find it difficult to buy a meal. But they (called "langars" at Gurudwaras, run by the Sikh community) never turn anyone away (regardless of faith or background or anything). Never! Some other temples and even some mosques do that, but it's not at all "all are welcome" like langars. So not the temples. So purpose isn't to be the meal provider even though they wouldn't return anyone.

So those langars aren't meant for eating in general for people. Also, people are not often alone. There are families with them and it would be very hard to conceive eating at those temples with entire families.

> In India people do not run after money per se, but for social status, which is a cornerstone of the Indian culture.

That is not entirely true. Like any other place people of course go for status and respect but saying that Indians don't go for money is missing the point. As a matter of fact money is a driving factor here. Especially for the people for whom this plan might be aimed at - the people below the fringe. There's a term here "BPL" - below poverty line. And trust me when I say it "Poverty Line" is estimated so generously that it is a shame even from a developing country standards. Otherwise a lot more people would have fallen below poverty line here.

You are spot on about rampant corruption which is uniformly present at every level - bottom to top. But remember that starts right at the top or bottom - depending at how you want to look at it.

Govt is aiming at giving the people bank accounts too and hope it catches up and succeeds.

Simply distributing money to a bank account will obviously eradicate some corruption, the problem is that, perhaps, a third of population in some areas have no bank account.

The economist Harrison Price used to talk about there being two different sorts of people - the "no, because" people and the "yes, if" people[1]. A "no, because" person will look at a seemingly impossible idea and state why it won't work, with some pretty damning reasons. That's what you're doing here - universal basic income won't work in India because people will spend the money on status symbols if they can get it, and many won't be able to get it due to not having a bank account. Those are fair criticisms.

A "yes, if" person would look at this idea and say "yes, if we can persuade Indian people living in poverty to spend their income on things to lift themselves out of poverty, and we can figure out a way to get them bank accounts, then this could work."

There's nothing wrong with being a "no, because" person, but "yes, if" tends to be a better approach for creative problem-solving.

[1] https://toddpack.com/2011/09/07/saying-no-gracefully/

Whether they do that or not, it is not likely to cause much inflation. Funding for the scheme is meant to be taken from other, existing, programs, so the total stimulus is zero or near zero. Even if it does boost the price of some luxury items, and I am skeptical that will do so to any significant degree, that would simply reduce the consumption of said luxuries. Also, you aren't going to buy much gold with 7k p.a..

My perspective is that the problem runs way deeper than this and any kind of social welfare scheme will be abused in India. This is because majority of the tax paying population thinks that they don't get enough for their taxes.

This might be somewhat justified because taxes in India can jump quite high (up to 30% of income) without seeing much increase in your net savings in major cities. This is compounded by the fact that a very low fraction of the eligible population actually pays taxes (this is due to most people being employed in the unorganized sector) which leads the government to try to maximize whatever it can get from the ones who actually pay.

This is evident in how so many relatively well off people haven't given up their LPG subsidy even after repeated requests by the government.

Likewise, it is not enough to live off.

And the cost of living in poorer countries is much lower, so the necessary UBI is that much lower.

US Hourly Wages for nonsupervisory workers has certainly grown over the last 20 years, but not in the past 40 years [2].

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...

This is different. In the past, technology has been a multiplier for the productivity of workers. The confluence of robotics and AI will mean the eventual evaporation of low-skill and/or laborious jobs as they are completely replaced by automated agents.

Unless we somehow go through a revolution in education in one generation, start augmenting humans, or place greater value and importance on artistic/creative endeavors, there simply won't be many things that humans are better/more cost-effective at than machines. Certainly not enough to make up for the displacement of jobs.

For example, there are ~3.5 million truck drivers in the US currently. Add those to the number of Lyft, Uber, taxi, etc. drivers. In less than 10 years, those jobs will most likely be completely gone except for bespoke, upscale professional drivers as a luxury. These people do not have a unique skill set they can apply to something else. Remember, low-hanging fruit jobs like working at fast food restaurants and jobs involving manual labor are also gone. That's not even mentioning jobs like customer service via phone or online chat, air traffic controllers, etc. which will be gone.

> The last 20 years in particular have overseen the most rapid wage growth in human history.

Globalization can only happen once.

We've also banned this account for seriously abusing HN, which you can read about here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13600908.

We've also banned this account for seriously abusing HN, which you can read about here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13600908.

Forgive me for the double post, but part of a sibling comment of mine is especially relevant here:

> I'm regularly floored by people's ability to talk about network effects, economies of scale, information asymmetries, moats, winner-takes-all games, and mergers/acquisitions with one breath -- all of which are non-regulatory market forces that suppress competition and innovation -- and then with the next breath assert that deregulation is the most straightforward way to spur innovation and competition.

I agree that eliminating rents should be a (if not the) primary goal of government, but I don't agree that eliminating regulation is synonymous.

The fundamental issue addressed by positive incomes is simply that money serves two processes in economies that are at complete odds with each other, 1) a store of value and 2) the fluid that drives economic activity. The more money that is held in the fewer hands, the less well it is able to fulfil the second and far more important purpose. In the limit, all the money is held by very few people, and shortly after that, those people find themselves at the hands of a very angry mob.

Which just never ends well.

... you mean the countries with the highest quality-of-life measures? The Scandanavian nations, Canada, Australia, NZ, all of which have vibrant economies, high average wages, and strong middle classes?

The US with their pathological fear of their own government is not what I'd use as a particularly characteristic example of social democracy.

We've also banned this account for seriously abusing HN, which you can read about here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13600908.

Yes, I'd prefer people be thrown in prison for refusing to feed the starving, rather than people starving to death.

I think property rights are valuable in-as-far as they improve overall utility, but insisting on enforcing them to the point where it could cause people serious harm is clearly beyond that point.

We can argue about the extents of property rights, but suggesting there be no limits is arguing for legalised economic murder.

EDIT: Just to note that I edited this quite extensively after posting.

> your preference for authoritarian violence

We've banned this account for egregious ideological flamewar and repeated incivility. Indeed, you've been using HN for almost nothing else. That's a serious abuse which destroys the culture we're hoping to build—thoughtful discussion—and stokes the flames the rest of us are working hard to damp down.

It's not a matter of the politics you espouse, much as it doesn't matter what brand of matches arsonists use. The patterns of flamewar are invariant across ideological flavor.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow HN's rules in the future.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13595551 and marked it off-topic.