Request For Research: Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Request For Research: Basic Income

#91

Post by harryh » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 7:51 PM UTC

dsp1234 wrote: post #80

harryh wrote: post #4

$10,000 * US_POPULATION ~= $3.2T ~= The total annual tax revenue of the US federal government. Something to keep in mind when discussing this topic.

Note that the about 23% of the population is under 18 (possibly zero or reduced BI), and 14.5% is 65 or older (possibly offset by SS). Also, since the census is tasked with counting all people in the united states, it also includes non-citizen long-term visitors and illegal (or undocumented) immigrants. So it's not quite as simple as latest census count * 10k. It's still quite a lot though.

Indeed you are correct! I was just tossing that out as a starting point so that people keep in mind the magnitude of the question.

Re: Request For Research: Basic Income

#92

Post by interesting_att » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 7:51 PM UTC

Really glad YC is pushing for research into this. This is a fascinating topic that deserves more research. There have many points in my life where many of my friends and I needed welfare just to purchase food. For all of us, we experienced unbelievable amounts of shame even considering the idea. As a result, two things happened.

i) Some of us didn't go on welfare to our detriment. Not eating = decreased ability to be a productive citizen.

ii) Some of us had to 'over-sell' to others and to ourselves our disabilities, out of the fear that we would be denied access to these services or be accused that we were gaming the system. The effects of overselling these disabilities were devastating on one's mental health.

Having a shame-free way of getting welfare could be a great thing.

Re: Request For Research: Basic Income

#93

Post by thinkingkong » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 7:51 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #5

There's a very relevant section in this book ( The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies - http://amzn.to/1KFJ1Iu ) , that I just read last night: > "His view is strongly supported by the work of economist Andrew Oswald, who found that joblessness lasting six months or longer harms feelings of well-being and other measures of mental health about as much as the death of…

We have to clearly start differentiating between "work", and a "job".

You can work hard at something which provides immense satisfaction and personal value (perhaps even value to others). But a job is strictly something you do in exchange for money.

A job doesn't necessarily contribute to your self-worth. Meaningful work, does.

Re: Request For Research: Basic Income

#94

Post by dsugarman » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

I think about this a lot. I think privatization of wealth reallocation could be the best model. If you could directly inject capital into underprivileged communities to do social projects, you could have twice the benefit to these communities. I imagine a platform where you could see social project proposals or propose your own and have people apply to run them. You can pair them with experts, give them the funding and let them hire peers to help accomplish the goals. You then have given them a livable income as well as improved their community.

I don't think it is as pure as a basic income, but rather than just redistributing wealth, it also creates wealth specifically for underprivileged communities.

Re: Request For Research: Basic Income

#95

Post by liamcardenas » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

I recommend this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Unexceptionalism_...

From wikipedia: "Allister Heath, deputy editor of the The Daily Telegraph, wrote that the book shows how the “remarkable work ethic” of Scandinavians has been eroded by large welfare states over time." (Of course, don't take wikipedia's word for it-- read the book yourself)

My take-away: Heavy socialism has absolutely stifled economic growth in Scandinavia. During the peak of welfare in Sweden, for example, net private sector job growth was ZERO.

If you want to stimulate economic activity, instead of giving everyone $10,000 per year, why don't we just cut taxes and removed red tape.

(I know that Scandinavia didn't technically have a basic income, but I still think that this material is completely relevant and very telling).

Edit: I said "During the peak of welfare in Sweden, for example, net public sector job growth was ZERO". I meant private sector. Major mistake, my apologies!

Re: Request For Research: Basic Income

#96

Post by rm_-rf_slash » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #5

There's a very relevant section in this book ( The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies - http://amzn.to/1KFJ1Iu ) , that I just read last night: > "His view is strongly supported by the work of economist Andrew Oswald, who found that joblessness lasting six months or longer harms feelings of well-being and other measures of mental health about as much as the death of…

This assumes people on basic income without jobs are idle. What about stay-at-home spouses and parents? What about community volunteers? What about people who take care of sick friends and relatives?

Furthermore, what is the economic benefit of the activities listed above? What would be lost if those activities were either abandoned or required to be paid at a fair market price? I know, charging grandma by the hour is a silly idea, but I say so to illustrate the benefits to society by activities not reflected in GDP, and to invite discussion about whether society would be better served by individuals living on basic income alone who spend their time helping others, without having to worry about making next month's rent.

Re: Request For Research: Basic Income

#97

Post by surfmike » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

"What can startups do to increase prosperity for everyone?"

I think cheap quality housing is a huge area that would help everyone. Taxes and housing together eat up the vast majority of the earnings most people make.

What could make a difference?

- applying technology to building denser housing. for example, imagine cheap robotic excavation, so every house and building could bury all their parking lots and long term storage areas below ground instead of occupying valuable real estate.

- improvements in transportation. Making transportation faster and more comfortable means more people can affordably live within commute distance of prosperous urban areas (say, the SF peninsula)

- advocacy: pushing for changes to zoning rules to allow dense, livable communities, bringing more housing to our cities. For example, imagine turning a shopping center + parking lot into a pedestrian-only mixed-use urban area, modeled on the best dense cities out there (like Tokyo, Munich, Stockholm, etc). This requires a combination of property developers with a strong vision, changes to zoning laws, and a strategy for overcoming NIMBYs.

Re: Request For Research: Basic Income

#98

Post by xixi77 » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

notliketherest wrote: post #13

When I talk with people about basic income, my gut reaction and primary argument is that it contrasts with that fundamental human nature that's been show time and again throughout humanity - given a guaranteed, fixed reward no matter how much or how little you work for it, disincentivizes work. It follows along the same lines as why government instituted communism fails. Or why the first version of the mayflower comp…

My gut feeling is actually similar, but I'm not sure it's quite correct. One big difference from what you are describing is that it while reward is guaranteed, it is not fixed -- any earnings are on top of that. I can see how it might actually result in people being more productive -- or it might not, that's why an experiment like this is a nice thing to do.

Also it doesn't imply communal ownership. It does not even imply communal consumption decisions -- unlike, for example, government-provided services: people themselves decide what to pay for and how much.

Re: Request For Research: Basic Income

#99

Post by davidw » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

anc84 wrote: post #89

davidw wrote: post #5

There's a very relevant section in this book ( The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies - http://amzn.to/1KFJ1Iu ) , that I just read last night: > "His view is strongly supported by the work of economist Andrew Oswald, who found that joblessness lasting six months or longer harms feelings of well-being and other measures of mental health about as much as the death of…

Affiliate tag free link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00D97HPQI/

I have a standing offer to buy a beer for anyone who visits me here in Bend with the entire 10's of cents I get every month with those links. But hey, at least it's a free beer for someone, rather than Jeff Bezos.

Re: Request For Research: Basic Income

#100

Post by eanzenberg » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

ufo wrote: post #63

eanzenberg wrote: post #40

One of the biggest fallacies of the BI movement is they suggest that when AI automates many menial jobs it will lead to mass unemployment. This assumes that the average person is incapable of more skilled labor, when history has shown time and again that people adapt to the changing workforce. Yes there can be lag but it's not insurmountable. Another problem I have with BI is it equally distributes assistance with no…

My worry about automation is less about people being left without jobs and more about that production ends up concentrated behind those with the capital to purchase automation tools.

Which if you read my last point, would increase taxes on those where capital is concentrated to be spent on research I listed.