Moving Forward on Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#321

Post by ncallaway » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:29 PM UTC

acgourley wrote: post #123

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…

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 attent…

The thing I'd like to see is government services that will optionally replace portions of your Basic Income.

If you're having problems feeding yourself, I would like to see an opt-in program where you can receive food, in exchange for $X out of your BI. If you're having problems housing yourself, an opt-in program for housing in exchange for $Y out of your BI.

The same options should be available for all the necessities (clothes, food, water, shelter, communications, and savings). The sum of these government services should sum to your total BI grant, so if you opt-in to all government services you have the basics of survival totally covered but receive no direct BI.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#322

Post by Yhippa » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:30 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.

Just thinking of this on the fly but could you have certain things that you cannot spend BI dollars on like this? Or after layering all these restrictions you've essentially recreated the previous system?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#323

Post by nkrisc » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:30 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…

While I tentatively agree, I don't think BI in this manner could succeed without first setting people up for success. Financial education and the ability to manage finances is a crucial prerequisite skill that many who would qualify for BI might very well lack. We can't throw people in the deep end of the pool and say the ones who didn't drown learned to swim.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#324

Post by grey-area » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

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…

That's exactly how existing welfare systems work. If you spend the money you must rely on charities like soup kitchens. BI changes nothing in that regard, what it does change is: it removes means testing and the huge cost, stigma, and unfairness that goes with it.

Many countries already pay for schooling, healthcare and military protection, why not do it for basic living costs?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#325

Post by phil21 » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

phjesusthatguy3 wrote: post #271

eanzenberg wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Michigander here. AFAIK, you can't just turn your Bridge card into cash. How does one purchase lottery tickets and drugs with welfare payments? The one way I can think of is hanging out with the high-school kids outside the liquor store and saying "I'll go buy you X if you go buy me lottery tickets and alcohol/go to your dealer and get me an O"

The market for trading benefits for cash/services/products is quite robust in communities where it is the norm to be on them.

I think you would be quite surprised - it's a very well developed shadow economy that has pretty well known "rule of thumb" exchange rates, money changers, runners, etc.

This will pop up in any market that offers non-cash items of value.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#326

Post by yequalsx » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

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…

My belief is that a society as rich as the U.S. ought to ensure that every person has access to basic healthcare, has enough food to live on, and a safe place to sleep at night. In such a system I'd say tough shit to a person who claims to be on hard times.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#327

Post by gnaritas » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

DawkinsGawd wrote: post #180

gshulegaard wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really isn't a good riddle. First, Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT) work better than most people expect ( http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-... ). As noted in the article, UCTs work surprisingly well in scenarios where lack of capital is the primary problem. A UBI (at least as usually is discussed in the US) is a de-scaling UCT. Second, most proponents of a UBI see it as more efficien…

You completely side stepped the question. I find it absolutely amazing how naive BI supporters are. I grew up poor in a ghetto in New York. Studied, went to university, became an engineer and am no longer in that socioeconomic bracket. However it is very apparent that the people in my current bracket (the one's that support BI), have no idea about the issues of the poor. Poor people are mostly poor because of the dec…

> Poor people are mostly poor because of the decisions they make. At least that is my experience.

Your experience is anecdotal and does not match reality, your view is called the just world fallacy.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#328

Post by fouc » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

I want to give major kudos to Y-Combinator for getting into research, and especially for launching a Basic Income experiment. I consider this Elon Musk-level thinking!

Due to the fact that we're automating a ton of work and approaching a post-scarcity type society, it will definitely be important to determine if basic income is achievable.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#329

Post by xienze » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

Pxtl wrote: post #207

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…

The other side of this challenge is that the "savings" will come from downsizing vast swaths of the public sector. That would be a political nightmare.

What's the problem? They'll get Basic Income! /s

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#330

Post by foobarqux » Tue, May 31, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

DawkinsGawd wrote: post #180

gshulegaard wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really isn't a good riddle. First, Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT) work better than most people expect ( http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-... ). As noted in the article, UCTs work surprisingly well in scenarios where lack of capital is the primary problem. A UBI (at least as usually is discussed in the US) is a de-scaling UCT. Second, most proponents of a UBI see it as more efficien…

You completely side stepped the question. I find it absolutely amazing how naive BI supporters are. I grew up poor in a ghetto in New York. Studied, went to university, became an engineer and am no longer in that socioeconomic bracket. However it is very apparent that the people in my current bracket (the one's that support BI), have no idea about the issues of the poor. Poor people are mostly poor because of the dec…

If most people born in poverty remain in poverty, while most people not born into poverty do not enter poverty, then it is self-evidently not the fault of the born-poor that they remain poor.