Live data from Hacker News

Moving Forward on Basic Income

blog.ycombinator.com

111–120 of 1001 posts

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#111
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…

Additional safety nets would be needed. A transition wouldn't likely happen overnight. It would more likely be a gradual phasing out of old programs and a build-up of basic income as money is moved toward that program. At the same time, additional resources would need to be pushed into services to help people budget and manage their finances. A combination of traditional in-person financial counseling and software would work best.

I use Simple, and they have a good model for integrating budgeting into their bank app. A basic income program should follow the same principles, giving out a debit card with a budget along with a website and app to help people manage their money better. The first expense it can cover is a cheap smartphone for those that need it.

Analytics tracking the efficiency of the program should allow a lot of optimizations over time. There's no way to predict exactly what will happen without trying it, but data on a national scale should make beneficial adjustments to things like budgeting software pretty easy.

A basic income is not a perfect and ideal system, but I'd say it's definitely an improvement over the status quo. It does require having some trust in people to manage their money, but with a little assistance, I think people will be able to make better choices for themselves than a bureaucracy can make for them.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#112
post #12

> In our pilot, the income will be unconditional; we’re going to give it to participants for the duration of the study, no matter what. This is omitting one crucial detail: for how long will the basic income last. At least for myself, my decisions would be completely different if I was to receive unconditional income for e.g. 10 years (or less), vs. for the rest of my life.

Somewhere between 10 years and the-rest-of-your-life, you need to start taking geo-political risk into account. Just because a government says it will be forever, doesn't mean it will.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#113

Unfortunately, this experiment cannot be extrapolated to macro-scale because it doesn't take macro-effects into consideration.

We're certainly not trying to answer everything with this one study--we hope it will be an important piece, but it's going to take a number of studies, a number of different approaches to know if BI really could or could not work. We hope us taking a first step will help push others in the US to do more of the research we need.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#114
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…

What sort of emergency do you envision? Most of today's financial emergencies hinge on either losing your job or incurring extreme debt due to uninsured medical care. I can't speak for all BI proponents but I, personally, support universal health care in addition to BI.

With health care taking care of medical expense emergencies, basic income is left to take care of job-related emergencies. Your example of "my car broke down" would seem to fit that category. So what then? Joe loses his job but basic income will make sure he never goes homeless and always has enough food to eat. Instead of having a major crisis he can take a break from working and maybe upgrade his skills.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#115
post #57
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…

> Almost all of the _basic_ needs of a human, i.e. those that we received 50,000 years ago, could be provided for $1-$2k a year 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 hea…

My argument is that a 'decent' life is completely relative, which you are basically making for me.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#116
post #55
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's only one way to study something like this.. and that's to do it. 5 years is a pretty amazing amount of time and I'm sure some great data will come out of it. Some smart people will probably treat it as a short-term thing and treat it as such, but the majority of the population are probably short sighted and will treat it as if it will be there forever. You can do a lot in 5 years.

> There's only one way to study something like this.. and that's to do it

This is a dangerous thing to experiment with when you have a huge nation of 318+ Million population.

It's far safer to let smaller nations, like Finland (whose entire population is less than New York City), test this idea out for a few generations. It's far easier to "bail out" a city's worth of people than it is a large nation, if things don't go as planned.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#117
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…

> Almost all of the _basic_ needs of a human, i.e. those that we received 50,000 years ago, could be provided for $1-$2k a year

Can you explain this? Basic needs include shelter, clothing, and food, which together cost much more than $1-$2k.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#118
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…

I've thought about this as well.. It's certainly an interesting response to BI that I don't think is debated enough.

My thoughts on the matter is that regulation on how the money is spent is only necessary in the cases where it's being abused. Current safety nets pays for this overhead on every beneficiary, whereas it's only really necessary on the people who no amount of unsupervised aid will help them (something like addictions would fall into this category). At this point we could have a single regulation and if BI isn't enough for this person to survive, it can be deemed that this person isn't functioning as a responsible adult and can have other systems act as a sort of legal guardian until they can be trusted to survive on BI. Yes it sounds like house arrest, but we can just have this be completely optional and equivalent to the "next" safety net. It's not more money or more food or whatever, it's simply guidance.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#119

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…

This. I can confidently predict that most people will be better off (vs a control group) for having their income topped up for a fixed period by wealthy philanthropists, in addition to any benefit entitlements they may already be eligible for.

But that's not Basic Income. Basic Income is replacing [most aspects of] the welfare state with a programme that redistributes portions of income from each according to their ability to each irrespective of their need, with all the complications entailed by the variable incidence of the increase in taxes required to balance the books and the likely reduction in state benefits to some needier citizens.

You might get some useful insights, but you can't say much about the viability of a programme from a study which only evaluates the bits that people are unlikely to be upset by.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#120
There's a lot of skepticism about basic income, especially when it comes to how does it save money? The top comment as of this writing is questioning it:

> 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?

Allow me to digress for a moment, I've recently been reading "The Expanse" series, and they have a throwaway snippet in the second book (i.e., not a spoiler) where a Martian Marine is walking the streets of a city on Earth. There's a girl who sells her a hot dog. The girl says that she's doing it for work credits. After she accumulates one year worth of work credits, she can attend university and get a real job and make money. Otherwise, she'd have to be "on basic."

Like I said, it's a throwaway scene, so there's not a lot of detail, and even in the later books when they talk about being "on basic", it's not a detailed description. But the girl in the story distinctly mentions "money" after "getting a job" which came after "university." That implies to me that, on some level, money doesn't exist for those "on basic." (And to be clear, in this not-terribly-futuristic Earth, everyone's on basic.)

In other words, the term "on basic" implied to me that you get food, shelter, clothing, access to public transportation, K-12 education, healthcare, and basic internet automatically. But if that's the case, why would anyone want money? Well, the implication here is that the food is minimal: ramen noodles and vegetables and beef. Shelter are studio apartments. Clothing are Wal-mart quality. Basic internet is more like 56K than broadband.

In the Expanse Earth, if you want more than that minimum (and most of us would), then you have to spend a year working to prove your willingness to contribute to society, and then you can go to university for free, then get a job and make money. That money can buy you things like a house with a yard, a car, surf and turf, and vacations to the moon.

If we were to somehow (and that's a big if) go with the definition of "basic" from The Expanse, it's almost impossible to squander it. You aren't handing Joe $500 and saying "This is your money for the month. Don't blow it." The food and clothing are free. (Presumably with demonstrable need, but in a post-scarcity society, perhaps T-shirts cost virtually nothing compared to the previous welfare systems and you might as well just hand them out on demand).

I'm not an economist, and I don't know the ins and outs of basic income, but that one throwaway page in The Expanse made me think a lot about what I think basic income should look like... and I don't think it should look like a monthly check.

Post reply on HN