Moving Forward on Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#121

Post by tdaltonc » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:16 PM UTC

siphor wrote: post #18

tomp wrote: 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.

It's 5 years. Outlined in the link below https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income

I think that's still up in the air. Hopefully they'll consult with the researcher they just hired before finalizing their back of the napkin design.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#122

Post by elizabeth-ycr » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:17 PM UTC

dluan wrote: post #83

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…

There's been a lot of research into this, particularly around the concept of savings as the big obstacle towards independence and freedom. The poorest people who struggle to achieve even a basic income (think participants in microcredit) face a difficult task of building enough savings to live past one catastrophic flood, one bad recession, one big purchase/investment (a new car that doesn't always break down vs. cra…

Participants' financial health, including savings and ability to weather economic shocks, is one of the key outcomes we'll be examining.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#123

Post by acgourley » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:17 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…

You'll find there are two voices for BI, the liberal and the liberatian. The liberal would prefer to keep universal healthcare and food programs and put cash on top, making the total distribution to the poor larger. The liberatian would prefer to simply move the complex paternalistic safety net into a simpler cash payment which doesn't disincentivize work while not increasing it's size.

As an aside, if you pay attention you'll see the two types of people will squelch their vocalizations in the interest of a short term alliance in support of BI.

Personally I believe the liberal position has both moral and practical superiority. It's going to be cheaper to make sure people have bread and vaccinations despite themselves than it's going to be to solve the resulting issues later.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#124

Post by derekp7 » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:17 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…

Well, 50,000 years ago, if you were hungry you could find some edible plants, or throw a stick at an animal and eat it. In today's society there is limited hunting and the land that grows food is privately held. And if you try to build a shelter anywhere on land that you don't own, it will get torn down. Not to mention the fact that you really can't own land -- property taxes makes it a rental at best.

Now one thing that would be neat -- what if most of the utility ground cover was actually directly edible by humans? Imagine replacing all the wild grass and weeds with edible vegetables. Of course they would have to be bio-engineered so that they are desirable for people, grow like weeds, yet not get consumed by vermin.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#125

Post by tomp » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:17 PM UTC

tdaltonc wrote: post #112

tomp wrote: 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.

Indeed, it would have to be guaranteed by some big insurance company (e.g. YC could simply buy annuities). If those companies fail, there will probably be bigger problems in the world :)

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#126

Post by maxerickson » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:17 PM UTC

eanzenberg wrote: post #110

colinplamondon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Tough shit" sucks when parents blow their handout on lottery tickets and drugs, leaving their children in perpetual poverty.

It would replace welfare programs, not all social services.

If children are not being cared for, the state will still intervene.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#127

Post by GauntletWizard » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

eanzenberg wrote: post #110

colinplamondon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Tough shit" sucks when parents blow their handout on lottery tickets and drugs, leaving their children in perpetual poverty.

We theoretically already have Child Protective Services to take children away in that case. Child abuse includes "[failing to] provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care or supervision."

On the other hand, there's the darwinist approach...

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#128

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

eanzenberg wrote: post #110

colinplamondon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Tough shit" sucks when parents blow their handout on lottery tickets and drugs, leaving their children in perpetual poverty.

[deleted]

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#129

Post by stale2002 » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

stevefeinstein wrote: post #24

I think tis is a step in the right direction, but I can't help but think that raising the floor still leaves people there on the floor. Won't inflation, as well as increased demand for the things people need just raise prices of those things out of reach of those on the floor negating any benefit?

Inflation is caused by a total increase in the money supply. That doesn't have to be the case with UBI.

The way that you get rid of the inflation caused by the money that is added to the system by UBI, is by taking away from someone else. Usually this is done through taxes.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#130

Post by vonmoltke » Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

eanzenberg wrote: post #110

colinplamondon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Tough shit" sucks when parents blow their handout on lottery tickets and drugs, leaving their children in perpetual poverty.

Short of internment camps, how does any welfare/safety net program address this?