Hacker News Reader

Comment by 123testaccount | Hacker News Reader

You parent's argument is poorly stated if the desire is to appeal to conservatives. Indeed, many people will object for the reason you stated.

There are a few premises that must be established to make a case for BI.

1. We are approaching a post-scarcity economy.

2. In a post-scarcity economy, many people will lose the ability to support themselves\their families, as whole industries are automated.

3. In the case of massive unemployment, consumption will drop dramatically.

4. Drastic drops in consumption will devastate the economy. This will be bad for everyone. Less wealth, less progress, less investment.

5. Therefore, to maintain economic growth/stability in a post-scarcity economy, we should provide a basic income.

That's the best argument I can formulate. It really has nothing to do with having fun and not being forced to do menial work. Those are fringe benefits.

View on HN

I strongly agree with this. I'm being contrarian with my questions above (and may do so again in the future) becuase it seems to me that the big obstacles to a basic income are cultural and political, and I'm trying to figure out good solutions to that problem.

As a parallel, consider immigration. From an economic point of view, open borders make a lot of sense because the supply of labor can easily adjust to the demand, so I've wondered for a long time why there shouldn't be free movement of labor as well as capital. Indeed, many people agree with this; I can't imagine you'd find anyone in the US that wanted to adopt China's houkou system, and require people from one state to get a work permit before moving to or taking a job in another state. Given the demographic situation in the US with waves of baby boomers retiring but also living longer the resultant worsening retiree:worker ratio, immigration also makes a great deal of sense as a way to keep a lid on payroll taxes and so forth, and this is coincidentally the last opportunity the US is likely to have to exploit a nearby foreign labor surplus just when it needs one (due to falling overseas birthrates and wage equalization eroding the US demand-side advantages).

Pretty much every economist agrees that more immigration with fewer restrictions would be a good thing for the US. But obviously a sizable contingent of the population just cannot stand that idea and any time such proposals are made in DC the objectors melt the congressional switchboard as quickly as possible to express their displeasure.

So I've given up hope that proposals for a basic income would succeed on the grounds of rationality alone.

I agree with you on the immigration front as well. And I agree that it is probably true that immigration reform/BI will not succeed on rational grounds. It seems to me that marketing/emotional appeals have the most effect on political/social systems.

When I discuss these topics, I always attempt to make a valid argument (the conclusion follows from the premises), and try to change the discussion to the truth of the premises. Everyone wants to debate the conclusion without looking at the actual premises/validity of the argument.

I appreciate a devil's advocate because it forces me to clarify my own thinking, which hopefully helps me clarify it to others.

Incidentally, I'm not sure we are really heading for a post-scarcity economy. That seems the weakest part of the argument to me. Or at least the toughest part to demonstrate conclusively. So, i think there are rational reasons to be against BI as well.

Why don't we join together and stablish UNIVERSALY UBI? We are about to finish citizens initiative in Spain. Switzerland is about to make a referendum. UE is discussing it on parlament... This is a global conversation. What inmigration?

>You parent's argument is poorly stated if the desire is to appeal to conservatives.

No, it was designed to appeal to people with a sense of right and wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com