
India floats the idea of a universal basic income - Mz
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21716064-powerful-idea-unfeasible-now-india-floats-idea-universal
======
felipeccastro
I used to think a universal basic income would make sense, especially in
developed countries, only for the near future scenario of machines taking ever
more jobs. We know that this has always happened in history, and new jobs were
always created, but that doesn't mean that the rate of job creation vs
destruction will remain the same, forever. What made me change my mind about
UBI was to realize that a) human desires are infinite, and there'll always be
more work to be done and b) the more work is done by machines, the richer the
population as a whole will be, as products and services automated tend to be
cheaper. I do expect the work dynamic to change a lot, and that in the future
we'll see a lot more gigs and maybe freelancing for a few hours each week will
be enough to sustain a reasonable lifestyle (for whatever that means). That
said, I believe our political efforts are best invested in removing all the
artificial constraints that make it hard for new jobs to be created, like
excessive regulations for example.

~~~
whack
The reasoning you're using is very flawed. Yes, we'll never get to a state
where a small number end up with 100% of the wealth. Yes, there will be an
equilibrium reached between the wealthy and the middle class. But this
equilibrium point can shift more and more towards the wealthy. In fact, this
has already been happening in the past few decades, as illustrated in books
such as Capital.

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.

~~~
jeffdavis
I think you are ignoring some bad things that could come out of UBI.

The greatest danger is that people may be comfortable near the BI level until
they are about 30, and not really work or educate themselves much (lacking
motivation). Then, they want to have a family, and all of a sudden their
desires for consumption skyrocket. They can't just join the workforce then,
because it will be 10 years before they advance enough to get what they want.

Then you have a bunch of undereducated, inexperienced people who want a lot of
stuff.

I'm not saying it will happen, but we have to be careful.

~~~
bitJericho
Ubi should never be about owning anything. It should be about providing
housing, food, healthcare, clothes, and nothing more. It should be for all
citizens, including children. This way you can have a family. But if you want
a tv, phone, car, you're going to have to work. Since people are living to
their 70s plus, lounging around isn't a big deal. I think you'll find people
become very creative too, or focus on high level education.

~~~
smallnamespace
In theory, making UBI only provide 'essentials' is a good idea, but in a large
country like India (or the US, or China), the cost of living in different
localities varies wildly.

A person receiving UBI who lived in San Francisco proper and got free housing
would essentially get 5x - 10x effective benefit than someone living where
rent is $500 / month. Cue the inevitable conflicts over who gets to live
where, and caps on what level of UBI will be provided.

But conversely, if the UBI benefit were a fixed monetary amount, then you'd be
consigning UBI beneficiaries to never live in an expensive area where urban
professionals work, so you would create a geographical and social divide where
UBI recipients are consigned to live in low-income slums.

I don't see any way to resolve these dilemmas that would make all people
happy, unfortunately.

~~~
erik14th
A location based value would never work. If people could choose to live in a
more developed area for no cost at all, they will most certainly move there,
increasing the demand for goods there and thus increasing the cost of life
there which would result in a snowball effect.

A "low-income slum" is not a problem so long as people can live decently. It's
"universal" so everyone receives it, what differentiates people in low-income
areas will be that they inherited no capital and have no means of acquiring
capital which is a problem that already do exist, so I don't really see your
point.

------
harigov
In other developed countries, I think universal basic income makes sense, but
not in the case of India. India has several systemic problems and a
significant portion of the population has little to no education. Any income
that can sustain a household without any pressure to grow as people will
probably hinder their progress more so than help them. For a country with no
lack of problems to solve, they are much better off to incentivize people to
learn, teach or do charity than to just hand over some money for being
citizens. Similarly, I am of the opinion that India is better off spending
that money by identifying all the organizational systems that it lacks like
waste processing, water purification, security, monitoring, etc., and funding
several startups in those areas. This is similar to how YC funds startups so
it is using market forces to solve systemic problems without resorting to
centralized planning and execution.

~~~
aylmao
>> Any income that can sustain a household without any pressure to grow as
people will probably hinder their progress more so than help them.

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.

~~~
geraltofrivia
While I agree with you on the perks of a UBI, I think India is not yet in a
place where UBI could work.

As mentioned in the article, the pay would be a meagre Rs. 7000 per annum. To
put it in perspective, I found it hard to keep my expenses per month to under
Rs. 8000, living frugally as a student, with basically free housing and
subsidized food.

Sure there are millions of people who would appreciate this sum and might gain
some benefits from them, but it would be inconsequential to about 70-75% of
the population. That's a lot of money wasted. It might br better to have
focused welfare programs which would put this money to better use. For
instance, government sponsored vocational training programs. India has a vast
network of NGOs, and many of them have such programs. Another venue to invest
this money might be on rural education systems. A disturbing number of them
are not functional, where both teachers and students infrequently visit a
shabby one room building to have free mid-day meals (I don't have any woes
with this program, btw). Better infrastructure, better teacher training
programs, are all venues that would benefit from the money. Ofcourse these
venues are riddled with a corrupt administration which would substantially
diminish the returns, but UBI distribution too might have similar problems.

Basically, in a country with this population, and with a huge wealth divide, I
think UBI is a very ineffective welfare program.

~~~
intended
What the??

8k a month is good for a huge chunk of our country.

The poverty line is in the mere tens of rupees per day when I last checked.

32 rs/day for rural india and 47 rs/day in cities.

32x30 is ~1000 rs.

Additionally, 25% or so are below the poverty line.

That's how bad it is. I think discussing welfare programs without knowing what
the poverty line is resulted in misplaced goalposts.

------
ozy
My vote goes to redistribution of wealth, by means of a progressive tax that
starts negative.

It is the human thing to do. But it also aligns with economics and politics.

Redistribution: because more money at the bottom, means a larger overall
market, and I think a more stable economy.

Progressive tax: any paying work will always improve your situation. (So
people stay motivated to work.)

Taxing wealth creation (and to a lesser extend, wealth) makes sense. It needs
a society with law and order and property rights. That needs to be payed for.
But of course not so much as to discourage wealth creation.

Most societies already redistribute wealth. Minimum wage, social programs,
health programs, pensions, some form of subsidies. UBI is a more disciplined
way of doing this. And just like these programs, you can tune that knob from
low to high.

~~~
gizmo
The negative income tax is not a progressive idea. It was originally proposed
by Milton Friedman as a way to dismantle the social safety net and get rid of
the minimum wage, food stamps, social programs, pensions, and all those other
programs previous generations have fought and died for. What do people get in
exchange? Well, a bunch of money, but nowhere near enough to buy all the
services they just lost from the free market.

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.

~~~
ozy
"Subsidies take that into account, the negative income tax does not."

In my country there are both subsidies, and tax breaks for such situations. Is
anything I said implying we abolish that? I would suggest it translates to
more negative tax for such situations.

"It's a far right idea that, if executed, would have horrific consequences for
the poor."

It is wealth redistribution. Which is not a far right idea. Any kind of wealth
redistribution is good for those who have little. (Unless you redistribute it
only to the rich, but that is not commonly understood with the term.)

But you imply it does not? Would you mind doing that "napkin" math and show us
what you mean?

~~~
gizmo
Radical wealth redistribution from the needy to the rich is a far right idea,
and that's what the negative income tax will boil down to in practice.

It's very simple. Not all people need the same amount of resources to live. A
healthy college student needs very little, a sickly elderly person needs a
lot. The complex social support system in place today attempts to redistribute
the tax money allocated for social services in the most fair way possible. The
negative income tax either replicates this complexity (but then what's the
point) or the negative income tax seeks to abolish the social support system
in order to redistribute money to the rich.

Now as a proponent of the negative income tax it should be on you to show how
it could work, not on me. But whatever, I can do some numbers. Since you
mentioned you wanted to get rid of social security the negative income tax has
to be at least that (or the elderly will have to eat dog food like they did
before FDR), and social security is about $30,000 in 2017. There are 240
million adults in the US, 240 million * 30k = 7.2 trillion. That's the same as
all local, state, and federal government spending put together. Whoops! So
clearly, there is not enough money to give every adult citizen the equivalent
of social security. So what are we going to do now? Means test the negative
income tax so the elderly get more and young healthy people get less? Means
test it so disabled people get more? So that single parents get more? Is the
negative income tax just going to replicate the entire social support system
it has just senselessly abolished?

If you want to think clearly about the negative income tax think about which
demographics end up paying more and which demographics end up getting more. If
the goal is just to redistribute wealth from the rich to the needy, you can
easily accomplish that by adjusting the income tax brackets. So clearly
negative income tax proponents don't want that. Is the goal to increase
efficiency? No, because social security has less than 1% in administrative
overhead, and negative income tax supporters still want to get rid of it. So
clearly that's not the goal either. Is perhaps the real goal to demolish the
entire social safety net while giving tax cuts to the rich? Why yes, it is!

~~~
mkaziz
forgive me if I misunderstand, but isn't negative income tax only negative
until you hit a certain amount of income (let's say the federal poverty level)
and then start getting taxed normally via the brackets?

~~~
gizmo
That's correct.

------
f_allwein
From the longer (paywalled) version:

"Over a fifth of its population lives below the poverty line. The scheme
outlined this week by the chief economic adviser to the Indian government,
Arvind Subramanian, would cut that figure to less than 0.5% by transferring
about $9 a month to all adult Indians. If doled out to everyone, that would
cost around 6-7% of GDP; the 950 welfare schemes soak up 5% of GDP."
[http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21716027-india-
should-...](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21716027-india-should-
replace-its-thicket-welfare-payments-single-payment-india-debates-
case?fsrc=rss%7Clea)

Fascinating as few people probably would have thought UBI would be remotely
feasible in a country of 1.3B people. Yet there is also massive inequality, as
well as corruption and inefficiency in handling all the various aid
programmes. Plus the country has Aadhaar, a digital-identification scheme that
covers 99% of adults.

Probably still not feasible for now, but interesting to see how relatively
cheap it would be to lift so many people out of poverty.

~~~
ouid
This is only tangentially related, but I remember there was a problem some
time ago where India simply did not have the infrastructure to count all of
its citizens. How is Aadhaar sure of its 99% figure?

~~~
suraj
Adhar relies on biometric data. Iris & fingerprint scanning is done when you
get your Adhar card.

~~~
ouid
that is not even remotely an answer to my question.

------
brilliantcode
I feel like universal basic income will only work in progressive societies
that have gotten used to various social programs before. They might go
bankrupt long before any of it's population actually receive money due to
corruption.

In country's with high poverty level where people don't possess the minimal
quality of life, I highly doubt the spirit of basic income will even be
recognized but seen more of a cash grab where you'd be considered stupid for
not taking advantage of. Such is the effect of poverty-removes the ability to
seek long term societal gains for short term selfish gain at the cost of rest
of society.

There may be cultural differences but they all boil down to economics of that
specific region and country. My feeling is that a basic quality of life and
the infrastructure to support it must be present for universal basic income to
work. It's just too easy to cheat when so many of your peers will undoubtedly
do it at your expense. It's expensive to cheat when none of your peer are
willing to do it due to social stigma and shame.

~~~
hsuresh
> I feel like universal basic income will only work in progressive societies
> that have gotten used to various social programs before. They might go
> bankrupt long before any of it's population actually receive money due to
> corruption.

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.

~~~
brilliantcode
The bigger question is how they will fund this. India is know for the capital
flight. Rich people aren't paying taxes in India so the government doesn't
have much money to spend on social welfare. Unless I'm wrong here? I'm not too
familiar with India so please excuse any cultural ignorances.

~~~
hsuresh
The argument for direct cash transfers (not really UBI, but a predecessor of
sorts) was that, there are already millions being spent on subsidies and other
welfare schemes, and only a small percentage of them actually reach the needy.

------
lngnmn
India is very special, traditionalist society. As person who have spent a
considerable time living in North India, I would say that people will turn
this free money into gold and garments and other status symbols, like mobiles,
which in turn, will cause inflation and soaring of prices of gold and other
assets.

The analogy could be a land in the great plains of US. In San Francisco or New
York the value and the price of land is ridiculously huge, while in plains it
is almost free - no one needs it. Similarly, free money will simply lose any
value and some new form of wealth storage and accumulation would emerge very
quickly.

BTW, in India there is a free food available in many big temples, but for some
reasons lots of people prefer to eat at home. In India people do not run after
money per se, but for social status, which is a cornerstone of the Indian
culture.

India is special. They have many local government programs to give nutrition
to the poor, which does not work well due to rampant corruption. 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.

~~~
aptwebapps
" ... which in turn, will cause inflation and soaring of prices of gold and
other assets."

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..

~~~
jgalt212
perhaps, but it will most certainly boost the prices of the products that are
disproportionately consumed by those who suddenly have more money.

overall inflation will be determined by how the plan is funded.

------
OJFord
> _proposal stops a little short of true universality: for his sums to add up,
> take-up must be limited to just 75% of Indians. That means either a return
> to flawed means-testing, or a hope that the better-off will voluntarily opt
> out._

That's easy: just wrap it in social stigma.

I'm sure there's plenty of (socially) lower-middle class Britons who are
eligible for one or other benefit scheme that they either don't realise, or
couldn't bare to enrol in.

~~~
geodel
Social stigma will be real difficult to attach there. In India a lot of people
take pride in being called backward or lower caste so they can mooch off some
or other government subsidy or reservation to jobs/education. As the article
mentioned it is almost always better offs who game the system to their
benefit.

~~~
praneshp
I didn't downnvote you, and I think your point is very true. I wish people had
found it less insulting so there could've been discussion. There are many that
need help, and many that want a certificate calling themselves backward.

~~~
geodel
You are right. It is interesting point which does not sit well with normal
understanding of self-respect, pride etc.

------
azernik
Interestingly, this appears to be motivated less by economic arguments than by
the ease of administration. India has a notoriously corrupt bureaucracy, which
has undermined existing welfare schemes by giving welfare to whoever pays the
bribes rather than whatever criteria are specified in law. With the (very)
recent national ID program, and associated electronic bank accounts, UBI can
be administered on autopilot, with few bureaucrats available to bribe (and
those isolated in central locations rather than on the ground near potential
shakedown targets).

------
thrgyuhlko
It's amusing how India has always aspired for Sweden like 'socialism' with a
Zimbawbwean economy.

I can't wait to see the ways the state will now find excuses to impinge on my
freedoms.

It's also rather spooky how India has followed the NWO playbook. It has only
accelerated under Modi's term.

Does anyone believe that a state which can barely provide education/
healthcare can really take this forward ?

------
mars4rp
I guess Iran is the only country with universal basic income already in place
then!

the income is not much and you probably can't live of it without working, but
it is universal!

~~~
vkou
Alaska, a thoroughly red state has universal income.

Likewise, it is not enough to live off.

~~~
maxxxxx
Isn't that more like an oil dividend?

~~~
gizmo686
Does it matter?

Alaska found a source of income (oil), and chose to spend it by giving a no-
strings-attached check to every (eligible [0]) Alaskan citizen; instead of any
other thing the government could chose to spend money on.

As a side note, my understanding is that the payment is not a direct dividend
of oil profits, but rather from the Alaska Permanent Fund, which is funded
principle from oil, but designed to be able to continue payments in perpetuity
despite the eventual lack of oil income. As a result of this, payments are
corralated with the general market which (from a macro-economic point of view)
is probably the opposite of what we want from a basic income, which could
double as a form of stimulus during economic downturn.

[0] It is not, however, means tested. Eligibility is based on being a
permanent resident, and not having been convicted of a crime in the preceding
year.

~~~
meanduck
> _Does it matter?_

Yes there is a pretty big difference. Its not wealth redistribution. You are
just spending the money created by natural resource. Its Govt/Peoples wealth
to spend as they see fit.

------
tejas1mehta
This is a very one-sided article. I would have hoped The Economist would do a
fair analysis of the pros and the cons of such an implementation. The cons in
this case are very clear.

1\. First of all, diverting funds from vital food and fertilizer supply to the
poorest of the poor in order to fund this scheme is a self-defeating idea.

2\. Corruption in cases involving direct money would be far higher than
schemes involving food.

3\. The poorest of the poor would not have a bank account and therefore, would
not be able to benefit from this scheme. A large population of India happens
to live in slums. This is the population that is in the most need of such a
program but would not receive its benefits. Just because of these conditions,
UBI is far more likely to help the rich than the poor.

Fundamentally, UBI would only work for advanced societies. For poor societies,
there just wouldn't be enough wealth to be distributed amongst everyone. This
is the reason why UBI has worked well in the Scandinavian countries - their
GDP per capita is already in the $50K-$70K range compared to India's $3K-$5K.

It is far more likely that the politicians floated this idea to appease the
citizens after the hardship they faced during the demonetization scheme.

------
hashin
One reason why the poor stay poor is that they simply don't know _how_ to
spend money. Financial literacy doesn't penetrate well into India's rural poor
because of the lack of quality education.

Another big problem is the gender inequality prevalent in the nation. This
will simply lead to income getting concentrated at the hands of the male head
of family. Buying nutritious food (which govt is directly providing as of now)
or educating girl child (govt subsidise it as of now) may not be his
priorities, not out of malice, but simply because he doesn't know about it.

Superimpose the corruption and caste dynamics, where wealth transfer has to go
through a bureaucratic sieve that is dominated by upper caste or privileged
Indians. The atrocities we hear from the average govt. office are gruesome
because majority of govt employees simply doesn't understand the plight of the
poor Indian.

To make an understanding for Indians and others, I will suggest the book "The
Feast of Vultures" a book that metes out excellent objective treatment to the
state of govt affairs in India. It is penned down by a veteran journalist
named Josy Joseph. If we start to appreciate how this huge system that thrive
in chaos, you will almost instantaneously pick up why this won't work. I am
not going to the objective arguments for UBI even given a perfect system to
disburse it. This won't work for India.

------
geodel
Indian finance minister has already said that Indian politics is not mature to
have this idea implemented. Activists/Politicians support idea of UBI along
with all the other subsidies. So it won't replace anything, just an addition
to already financially burdened state.

To put in perspective Indian per capita income is just 3% of USA. Even with
PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) it is still 1/10th of US. I think most generous
implementation might not even be able to provide 2 basic meals a day, forget
housing and healthcare etc.

------
statictype
_That means either a return to flawed means-testing, or a hope that the
better-off will voluntarily opt out._

₹7000 per year is an absurdly small amount. Why wouldn't everyone opt out of
it?

I'm kind of stunned that this small amount of money every year is enough to
wipe out poverty down to 0.5%

I'm also perplexed at how the rich will gain from it. If you force people to
jump through a few minimum hoops to get it, most of the working class will not
even bother trying to claim it. Am I correct?

------
Havoc
Surprised by this - I would have thought "poor" countries like India would not
be able to fund this. Hell I have doubts about 1st world funding it.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Because of the way the math works, you can _always_ fund it at some level,
because everyone receives it. It doesn't actually "cost" $1 for you to pay $1
in tax and then get back $1 in UBI. If everyone in the country has the same
income then the UBI is a no-op (but in theory you could still have it). All it
ever does is cause money from wealthier people to go to poorer people, the
same as any other redistributive program, but more efficiently and with less
central planning of what people are allowed to do with their money.

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

~~~
Havoc
Thanks for this. Hadn't realised this before but makes sense.

------
perseusprime11
I also think having a ceiling on how much money you can have go hand in hand
with UBI. Imagine Bill Gates can have only 3 million dollars of money in his
total assets. It will be intetesting to model such a civilization and see the
effects.

------
ram_rar
UBI definitely makes sense for developed countries. But, India is far away
from it. Considering UBI is like taking a defeatist approach towards skill
training for your countrymen.

------
Jaruzel
Linked is now maxxed out and blocked (detected via HN referer?)

Have to get to it via a google search now:

[https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=http://www.economist...](https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=http://www.economist.com/news/finance-
and-economics/21716064-powerful-idea-unfeasible-now-india-floats-idea-
universal&gws_rd=ssl)

------
smprk
I agree with the second part of this exceprt from the article, first having
already been taken care of -- It will take time before 1.3bn Indians receive
such a transfer. Keen as Mr Subramanian is, he concludes that UBI is “a
powerful idea whose time even if not ripe for implementation is ripe for
serious discussion.”

------
known
Dominant minority communities will oppose UBI
[http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/3u2QUPuXBEFPaBQXU2R8mJ/When-...](http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/3u2QUPuXBEFPaBQXU2R8mJ/When-
will-the-BrahminBania-hegemony-end.html)

------
Shivetya
Interesting idea, for a country with so many in real poverty it would be a
good step forward. This is a country which had to build toilets to improve
sanitation so their issue with a very established lower class is easily seen.

If all members of a house hold receive the benefit, set a minimum age so as
not to encourage more births, then even that low proposed amount will add up
in for a poor family. The new issue is to make sure those who provide goods
and services in those areas don't exploit this new income unfairly

------
Advaith
If this happens, India will progress at a rapid pace. Money is te primary
issue in almsot all cases.

------
aminok
>But as things stand now, the owners of the machines get richer, and the
displaced workers get significantly poorer.

No they don't. We've had 200 years of massive automation fueled job
destruction, and wages and the demand for labour are massively greater now
than 200 years ago.

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

~~~
MarkMc
In 1995 the real median US household income was $52,664. In 2015 it was
$56,516 [1].

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](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#/media/File:U.S._Hourly_Wages_-
_Real_or_Adjusted_for_Inflation_1964-2014.png)

~~~
aminok
The US isn't the world. The US has many traits that are peculiar to it, and
not universal to economies that are becoming increasingly automated. The world
has seen more wage growth over the last 20 years than any other period in
history:

[http://csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-
global-...](http://csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-global-war-
on-poverty)

~~~
aylmao
Well, but doesn't that mean that you already have a counter-example? In the US
it IS the case that rich is getting richer and the rest aren't really
benefiting too much from all this automation.

The world is certainly doing better, but I also have to wonder how much of
this is thanks to automation, and how much thanks to the fall of colonialism
over the past century.

------
aminok
Computers and horses don't have property rights or the means to exercise them.
All of this automation is augmenting humans because we do. We've gone from 122
million people owning smartphones in 2007 to 2.5 billion people owning them at
the beginning of 2017 for example.

~~~
reddytowns
The first neathenderals to figure out how to use tools didn't have property
rights, but the tools still augmented them. We are not so different from them,
and faced with an overwhelming opposing power, (tech + extreme wealth) we
don't have much of a chance, either.

~~~
aminok
Neanderthals faced a different species of humans whose culture they were not
capable of integrating into. Humanity right now forms one unified global
culture through which ideas and technology freely flow. The rising tide of
technology is lifting all boats (massive wage growth globally).

Moreover, it's not clear that your premise is accurate. Neanderthals
constitute 3 percent of Eurasian human genes, meaning that their genes were
evolutionarily successful (3% * 6 billion > 100% * 100,000), and this is
ignoring the success of their close kin, with whom they already shared >99%
genes.

~~~
reddytowns
We are about to face a few individuals with technology will hold massive power
over everyone else. Given human nature, I would guess they'd primarily will be
concerned with fighting among each other, and would care very little about
harming the masses, if we got in between them and something they wanted. How a
"unified global culture" is going to fix that, I haven't any idea. (And you
believe were in a unified global culture, really? From North Korea to Sweden,
really?)

Your second point is baffling to me. Why not include mice, they have 97.5% of
our genes, as being successful? Why not all mammals? Oh, except horses, of
course, because you said in a previous comment we are different from them. If
you can call neathenderals successful, then I don't know what you are actually
arguing for.

~~~
aminok
>We are about to face a few individuals with technology will hold massive
power over everyone else.

There are plenty of counterindications to that. For instance, many forms of
technology are becoming increasingly widely adopted, at a rapid pace. I gave
the adoption of smartphones as one example.

>Why not include mice, they have 97.5% of our genes, as being successful? Why
not all mammals? Oh, except horses, of course, because you said in a previous
comment we are different from them.

I would say the success of human beings is by some metrics a success for mice,
mammals etc as well..

~~~
reddytowns
Technology adoption != power. Everyone using a cell phone which tracks their
position, communication, and behavior, and then feeds them propaganda from a
central server is not increasing their ability to fight back.

>I would say the success of human beings is by some metrics a success for
mice, mammals etc as well..

But, again, as you stated previously, not horses? Seriously, you are moving
the goalposts all over the place.

~~~
aminok
The proliferation of smartphones doesn't lead to everyone getting "propaganda
from a central server". A smartphone is a personal computing device that
enables far more peer-to-peer communication and interactive engagement with
the world than the previous mass-media paradigm of the pre-internet age (where
a small number of broadcast networks, newspapers and radio stations controlled
the minds of the vast majority of the population through passive one-way
communication).

I agree that the loss of privacy is a huge concern, but like I said, there are
positive trends as well that you are simply hand-waving away.

>But, again, as you stated previously, not horses?

Horses as well!

> Seriously, you are moving the goalposts all over the place.

I directly addressed your argument and then I also made an additional argument
that your premise is not necessarily true. That's not defined as moving the
goalposts.

~~~
reddytowns
> I directly addressed your argument and then I also made an additional
> argument that your premise is not necessarily true. That's not defined as
> moving the goalposts.

You've stated or implied:

1\. Property rights is the reason that technology is augmenting humans 2\.
Unified global culture is the reason that technology is augmenting humans 3\.
Having a genetic legacy is evidence my "premise is not necessarily true"

You are definitely moving the goal posts by #1 and #2.

Also, you've failed to address:

1\. Why Neanderthals were augmented despite not having property rights (#1,
above) 2\. What my premise has to do with genetic legacy. From what I gather,
you assume that as long as the people alive today share genetic material with
other species, either alive or dead, my premise is inaccurate. Why? 3\. What
your premise actually is. Are you talking about genetically legacy, or
something else? Is all that you are saying is that those alive tomorrow will
at least share some DNA from those already dead? Not much of a shocker, is it?

You are being, seemingly intentionally, unclear about many things, as well as
bringing up several different threads of thought at once, muddying the
conversation.

------
meanduck
Here some official fact [http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-
india/data...](http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/data-
shows-only-1-of-population-pays-income-tax-over-5000-pay-more-
than-1-crore-2779065/)

 _For 2012-13 FY, 12.5 Million (1%) paid any Income tax, averaging Rs 21,000
($350). The 3 individuals in the top-bracket of Rs 100-500 crore ($16M-$83M)
paid a total tax of Rs 437 crore ($72M) — resulting in an average tax outgo of
Rs 145.80 crore ($24M)._

Indian statists cant help but screw the country funders even more.
Disgustingly inhumane.

------
aminok
Forcibly redistributing income from low resource generators to high resource
generators creates an incentive for people with fewer resources to have more
children than they are capable of supporting. This dynamic will in the long
run lead to more people that produce fewer resources.

Currently government is redistributing income upward by economic prohibitions
(regulatory barriers):

[http://cepr.net/publications/reports/working-paper-the-
upwar...](http://cepr.net/publications/reports/working-paper-the-upward-
redistribution-of-income-are-rents-the-story)

and it is redistributing downward with social welfare spending, with the US
massively increasing social welfare spending since 1972:

[http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/what-
is-...](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/what-is-driving-
growth-in-government-spending/?_r=1)

Annual spending growth on various components of social welfare spending (1972
- 2011):

>Pensions and retirement: 4.4%

>Healthcare: 5.7%

>Welfare: 4.1%

Annual economic growth over the time frame:

>2.7%

The only thing it has to show for giving people more "free money" to spend is
a higher trade deficit, stagnant wage growth, and, I would argue, an explosion
in the amount of single parenthood:

[http://pinetreewatchdog.org/500-rise-in-single-parenthood-
fu...](http://pinetreewatchdog.org/500-rise-in-single-parenthood-fueling-
family-poverty-in-maine/)

But hey, since 40 years of social democracy has failed, let's keep doubling
down and giving people more "free" money.

The end result of this bidirectional forcible redistribution is the productive
middle class being destroyed, and two classes becoming increasingly
significant: a small upper class controlling a growing share of national
output, and a large unproductive underclass that is dependent on the taxes
that upper class pays, constituting an increasingly large portion of the
population.

~~~
jjoonathan
> Currently government is redistributing income upward by economic
> prohibitions (regulatory barriers)

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.

~~~
aminok
All regulations, except on natural resources like land, should be eliminated
in my opinion, as they are forceful interventions against people exercising
their legitimate right to freely contract and utilise their own private
property. In industries where network effects emerge, the government should
fund open-source protocols that can compete with privately owned options. For
example, applications built on a distributed consensus public blockchain (e.g.
Ethereum) could be competitive with many existing centralized services.

~~~
a_t48
Should I have the right to force someone into slavery\indentured servitude if
they inadvertently sign their rights away?

~~~
none_for_me_thx
A valid contract requires consideration. It also requires an understanding, by
both parties, of the terms of the contract so, no you couldn't _force_ someone
into _slavery_ if they _inadvertently_ blah blah blah. I'd say none of those
words make sense in context of a valid contract.

------
aminok
People being able to exercise their right to freely contract and control their
own private property is sickening?

You'd prefer people being thrown in prison for refusing to surrender their
private property rights, or for engaging in a voluntary economic interaction
that some other party created a prohibition against?

Please help me understand your preference for authoritarian violence against
peaceful people.

~~~
dang
> _You 'd prefer people being thrown in prison_

> _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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13595551)
and marked it off-topic.

------
analyticbastard
Isn't this the wishful thinking again of free energy, or infinite motion
engine? Weren't we done with that already?

~~~
civilian
It's not the same. This isn't trying to break the rules of physics. It's just
a very large welfare program that would benefit from not having a bureaucracy
behind it. And it would rely on the theory that enough people will still want
work, so that they can afford luxuries, live where they want to, and get other
trappings of social status.

~~~
yarou
Sounds like living in a libertarian paradise. Except if you get stabbed and
your doctor doesn't take your particular private healthcare plan. Then you
bleed out while singing the praises of deregulation.

~~~
civilian
??? You're getting downvotes because your comment was apropos of nothing. I
was just correcting analyticbastard's conception of UBI, I wasn't stating
support for anything.

