51–60 of 1001 posts
Or moving backwards, the study will findout.
I presume your strong, proud, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps oneliner throwaway comment was well thought out, so perhaps you could shed some light on the interesting artistic choice of failing to put a space between "find" and "out"?
Unfortunately, the explanation most consistent with data on happiness/satisfaction is that the primary utility gain from wealth is derived from gains in zero-sum social status. We can tell this even from the language of the post itself: "everyone should have enough money to meet their basic needs." Basic needs? Everyone in America has their basic needs. Almost all of the _basic_ needs of a human, i.e. those that we r…
Dignity is probably a basic need that $1-2k can't buy.
I'm excited that someone is taking the initiative to test the idea further. Any thoughts on how to tell if things "go well"? Is there a set of metrics that will published beforehand? Most of the claims I've heard about basic income tends to fall into the not-falsifiable camp. I am very interested to see what data/results would convince a basic-income proponent that it isn't a good idea. (I think the opposite would be easier, turning a basic-income skeptic into an advocate).
Honestly, I think any "Basic Income" research where the recipient classes aren't 100% of the members of some well-defined polity and where the policy is explicitly a close-ended pilot is researching something so fundamentally different from Basic Income (it is well-known that close-ended benefits have a different effect on behavior) that, while there may be some useful insights that have applicability to actual Basic…
Well, if a basic income were to be introduced at the state level, that still has no guarantee of continuing for any period of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's 5 years. Outlined in the link below https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income
So in other words, a long enough time to make people think they can draw reasonable conclusions about the viability of BI, when in actuality it's not long enough. You have to study the generational effects of this sort of thing. People are going to behave very differently when they know this will be around for a very short time versus the rest of their lives, nevermind how people behave when they're second or third g…
I have a friend who was a fireman who developed some health problems at 44 which made doing his job difficult without putting himself and others at risk. He's now retired at approximately half pay, with healthcare. He's now doing stuff that he is passionate about -- cooking BBQ for friends, family and events and gardening. (very serious gardening, like he can almost feed his family from a city lot).
There are many stories like that which are worth hearing. IMO, it would be a better population to study, as most retirees like what I'm describing aren't receiving subsidy for housing or food.
Unfortunately, the explanation most consistent with data on happiness/satisfaction is that the primary utility gain from wealth is derived from gains in zero-sum social status. We can tell this even from the language of the post itself: "everyone should have enough money to meet their basic needs." Basic needs? Everyone in America has their basic needs. Almost all of the _basic_ needs of a human, i.e. those that we r…
Assuming people (a) have the skills and/or (b) are OK being cut off from modern society. The goal with basic income is to allow _everyone_ to live a decent life without going all survivalist (and risk dying). Even people who are very skillful (can do repairs, have their own farm, in good health, etc) often live on ~10x that.
Even if you disagree with the two above points, you've just argued for basic income being at a different number.
"One reason we think it may work is that technological improvements should generate an abundance of resources." This is already being seen in some contexts. For example, the portion of income Americans spend on food has dropped from 17.5% to 10.5% over the last 53 years. "Because of the overall rise in income, and the consistent shrinking of food prices adjusted for inflation, we actually have more disposable income…
Setting aside whether or not redistribution is ever justified, I do respect the pragmatism of the UBI granted it replaces all other forms of welfare. Faced with a choice between the current welfare state and a UBI, the latter is a no brainer. While not specifically a UBI, the negative income tax seeks to accomplish the creation of a similar safety net while still maintaining a strong profit motive for the people bene…
I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say.
But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all their money and now can't afford rent and/or food? Do you tell them "tough shit, you've exhausted all your social safety nets" or are there safety nets below BI, essentially recreating the welfare programs previously destroyed? If so, how do you prevent fraud without a department following up on Joe's twelfth "my car broke down" case of the year?