Hacker News Reader

Comment by mistercow | Hacker News Reader

The more time goes on, the more I think maybe a minimum guaranteed income is the solution that makes the most sense. Maybe we should just accept that there isn't going to be enough work for everyone, and that that's going to become more true in the future, not less. And furthermore, maybe we should accept that that's a good thing, as long as we shape our economy accordingly.

View on HN

I'd be okay with some bare subsistence level income, but the reality is that politicians will buy votes by redefining "bare subsistence" over time.

Eventually these types of programs all get out of control. See medicare, social security, student loans, food stamps, etc.

>Eventually these types of programs all get out of control. See medicare, social security, student loans, food stamps, etc.

I don't know what you see as "out of control" about medicare, social security, or food stamps, but it doesn't really matter.

The more important question is why you think the minimum income should be limited to bare subsistence. Once the system is in place, you can use it to control job availability. Not enough jobs? Raise the minimum income and people will work fewer hours.

Out of control means $184,000 total government debt per CITIZEN. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Regarding "subsistence", make NOT working attractive and you get more of it. It's simple human nature.

"Our debt is really high, therefore social programs must be out of control" is not a sound argument.

Actually, given how much these programs participate in the formation of the debt and given what the projections are for these costs in the future, it's pretty close. Of course, any debt by itself does not mean that, but this particular one is heavily related to spending (see how state revenues and outlays changed lately) and spending is heavily related to welfare. "Out of control" is a matter of opinion, spending and debt pattern are out there for all to see.

I would propose the description of unsustainable and incapable of delivery as better than out of control.

I guess if you didn't know or care that entitlements are the largest identifiable chunks of government spending you might feel that way.

Isn't the largest identifiable chunks of government spending defense?

Entitlements (not in the Constitution) are twice as large as defense (in the Constitution).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY...

The argument "our debt is really high, therefore there is too much spending" is also not a sound argument.

'x is not a sound argument' is not a sound rebuttal.

Do I really have to waste my time explaining that debt accumulates when revenue is less than spending, and so in order to say "the debt is too high, therefore spending is too high", you must first establish that the problem is not low revenue?

The low revenue is a problem too, but raising revenue enough is very hard - since just raising taxes suppresses economic activity and breeds evasion, and making economy produce more by government decree is a secret not yet unlocked.

Well, you could google and look at actual economic data to see that spending as a percentage of GDP is now over 24%, only outstripped by World War II era spending. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2010...

So where does your condescension come from regarding others' knowledge of spending vs taxation?

Yes, it helps the flow of the thread. At least that way I know what line of thinking you are using. Otherwise, why even post?

I think the argument was more like "our unfunded social programs' costs require out-of-control payments to be made in the future, therefore social programs are out of control."

Maybe it is our military programs that are unfunded. Like the ones passed as non-budgetary "emergency" appropriations.

The military budget is funded, except possibly military pensions.

Edit: What I mean is, the amount they are obligated to spend is set on a yearly bases (maybe tri-yearly in some cases), not on a 60-year horizon in which entire generations expect a future payment.

Forget about the use of "funded" vs not -- wouldn't you say the above is a pretty substantive difference? If we have to cut the fat, we have the option at any time of slashing military spending. In contrast, slashing other spending means stiffing pensioners who predicated their whole lives on it. We have an obligation to give them a realistic estimate of how much will be around when we hit a serious fiscal cliff -- in addition to cutting military spending.

Not enough jobs? Raise the minimum income and people will work fewer hours.

Where does this money come from, if GDP and thus gov't revenue is not increasing?

>The more time goes on, the more I think maybe a minimum guaranteed income is the solution that makes the most sense.

Why? Someone has to pay for it.

>Why?

See the rest of my comment.

>Someone has to pay for it.

Of course, and those would be the people who choose to work in order to earn more than the guaranteed minimum. The result would be more available jobs with more relaxing hours, giving people more time to spend with their families, on side projects, or on creative pursuits that enrich our culture.

The idea that automation and technological advancement can cause people to go hungry is frankly crazy. Instead of celebrating the fact that humans don't have to waste their time on menial crap, we are forced by our economic system to wring our hands over the fact that that menial crap can no longer be used as an arbitrary metric for distributing resources.

>Of course, and those would be the people who choose to work in order to earn more than the guaranteed minimum. The result would be more available jobs with more relaxing hours, giving people more time to spend with their families, on side projects, or on creative pursuits that enrich our culture.

I don't follow this logic. The easier it is for people to skate through life without working or working effectively, the less incentive they have to contribute. The people that pay for this life will decrease and quality of life will decrease for everyone.

>The easier it is for people to skate through life without working or working effectively, the less incentive they have to contribute.

We do not currently have a problem with people not wanting to work. We currently have a problem with people being unable to find work.

>The people that pay for this life will decrease and quality of life will decrease for everyone.

That's why the system has to be dynamic. If you have a surplus of jobs, you reduce the GMI so that people have to work more. If you have a deficit of jobs, you increase the GMI accordingly.

Not coming down for or against, but one argument is that it causes less market distortion than a minimum wage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Someone has to pay for the increased minimum wage too. I agree with parent that EITC has more bang for the buck if you're interested in helping the poor. I guess someone on the right would just want neither; fair enough I say.

WONKY ASIDE:

The incidence of the minimum wage is almost certainly equivalent to that of a regressive consumption tax. So assuming no disemployment effects, it basically transfers wealth from everyone who buys the products of low-wage labor (disproportionately from the poor) to people who work minimum wage jobs, some of whom are also poor. It also kills some low-wage workers' jobs.

By contrast, EITC is a transfer from people who pay income tax (disproportionately the rich) to people with low incomes. So unlike the minimum wage increase, it is unambiguously beneficial to the poor.

In my personal opinion, one of the big reasons the minimum wage is so popular (and it really is, even across party lines) is that the costs are hidden, so people can pretend it's being paid for by big bad corporations even though the costs are ultimately borne by disproportionately poor consumers.

Why do you assume that consumers will pay the cost of higher wages, and not owners (via lower profits)?

>and not owners (via lower profits)?

Because 'free market' competition would have already reduced that cost/profit via other market factors. Assume the market is colluding on price and it's not hard to see that consumers could pay the cost.

For this to work there really has to be significant rewards for working on the lower end. If people are guaranteed 40k but can make 50k toiling away at Walmart full time it will likely become hard to find people to fill the jobs.

Maybe. The difference between 40k and 50k sounds small in terms of raw percentage, but if you consider disposable income, it's more significant. What I think you'd much more likely see is an increase in part time work. In your scenario, likely nobody would be willing to work full time as a cashier at Walmart. But they would work part time if they wanted to save up for a new car, for example.

If the labor pool can support it, I think that's as it should be. The neat thing about the minimum guaranteed income is how well it scales as we automate jobs in the future. If we no longer need very many people working jobs at the skill level of Walmart cashiers, then raising the minimum income will account for that relatively painlessly.

But it's obviously not something you can just slap into place. You have to analyze the problem to figure out both how to set the minimum income initially, and how to adjust it over time.

Just take away $0.25 (of basic income) for every $1 earned working.

Or whatever numbers make sense. But it should be straightforward enough to keep incentives available.

That's why you grant a smaller basic income stipend (say, more like $15k/year -- equivalent to minimum wage at full time), but take away nothing for working. So if you grant $15k and Wal-Mart pays $15k (same wage levels as now), the worker has a total income of $30k.

Society's income, or capacity to work, isn't a fixed pie.

I'm not sure if that point is intended to support or reject GMI.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com