Moving Forward on Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#91

Post by ryanmarsh » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:09 PM UTC

colinplamondon wrote: post #67

xienze wrote: post #60

So, a question for the BI fans: 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 th…

Personally, I'd hope the system would absolutely tell them "tough shit". There's got to be a line where the safety net gives out, because someone is too expensive to help. That's where family and charity hopefully take over. At the same time, I think your instinct is right, and it's something I've never heard mentioned before. It's almost inevitably that there'll then be the "food security" fund, and the "housing gua…

Or we could teach them financial literacy. Kind of like how countries with socialized healthcare spend more on health education.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#92

Post by eanzenberg » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:09 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #71

xienze wrote: post #60

So, a question for the BI fans: 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 th…

To add to this, what about those unable to take care of themselves. Children, the mentally ill, those who are badly addicted, those who are easily taken advantage of (like in borderline elder abuse cases).

BI proponents argue that all social services will be replaced by BI. So, those gov't services would be de-funded.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#93

Post by aerovistae » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

xienze wrote: post #28

siphor wrote: post #18

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…

But did you read what they said? That's not the point of this. It's a pilot study to get their feet under them and get some idea of how the real, long-term study would go. The point of this isn't to draw conclusions about BI, it's to draw conclusions about how to study BI so as to help them set up the long-term version more effectively.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#94

Post by haaen » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

BI is immoral: why should anyone who can work get money for doing nothing?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#95

Post by mikeash » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

kauffj wrote: post #34

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…

For basic needs, I'd say that encompasses food, water, and shelter (at least in colder climates). A decent number of Americans don't have these met. Feeding someone on $3/day sounds somewhat challenging to me, and throw in shelter on top of that and I don't think your $2,000/year figure is going to cut it.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#96

Post by ChrisBland » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

I applaud the move to push this forward, but the cynic in me can't help but ask; is the federal government really willing to make a portion of their employees obsolete? Are the people who run these large bureaucratic departments willing to give up that power? How will AFEG & municipal unions react to this?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#97

Post by kauffj » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #77

kauffj wrote: post #34

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…

Not really. The biggest need that's expensive to make work is shelter - the cost has not gone down over time. There are millions of Americans either on the streets or living with toxic family members they need to be away from.

Tents or other very basic structures exceed or match the quality of shelter that humans lived in for tens of thousands of years. There is no innate need for modern conveniences, other than the innate need to not be so far away from the other guy.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#98

Post by acgourley » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

nirmel wrote: post #78

I've recently been researching the structured settlement (annuity) industry. It seems like as soon as someone has a guaranteed set of future payments, you will get structured settlement brokers reaching out, offering to buy out their future payments for a (often low-ball) lump sum today, and many will take it. Will you permit these kinds of side deals?

I assume this would be resolved by making BI payments immune from bankruptcy.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#99

Post by xrange » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

kauffj wrote: post #34

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…

>As such, it's likely that this study will find, entirely correctly, that recipients are happier, more productive, etc.

I wonder what the right way is to measure happiness for a group. Say this test makes 20% of participants much happier, 70% about the same, and 10% overdose on heroine? And what metric can you use to quantify happiness on an individual level?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#100

Post by mikeash » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

xienze wrote: post #72

mikeash wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do we do now when people blow their Social Security or welfare check and can't afford rent or food?

Well the money is generally earmarked. Your Section 8 voucher goes towards housing, food stamps go towards food, etc. That creates a limit on how the money can be spent.

Social Security isn't earmarked. Food stamps have pretty trivial workarounds for converting them into cash.