Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moving Forward on Basic Income

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#431

Post by ZenoArrow »

ygjb-dupe wrote: post #283
DawkinsGawd wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 you are an engineer I would expect a better capability of root cause analysis than that. Your list of things there is entirely comprised of things that are largely outside of the control of individuals. "Poor people are mostly poor because of the decisions they make." * Drug addiction Yes, a person can choose to use drugs. Usually the choice is made under intense peer pressure and at a young age. We won't let chil…

The impact of poverty is more than just being poor, it can also affect your state of mind. There are studies that show people who have grown up in poverty have (on average) less self-control than those who grew up without experiencing poverty. I'll dig up the study so you can see it for yourself.

EDIT: There are a bunch of studies related to poverty and self-control in this article:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-motivated-brain/201...

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#432

Post by coderzach »

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…

This is already an existing problem with SNAP (food stamps), which I believe are disbursed once a month. You can totally use it all the first week of the month and be SOL for the rest of the month.

As for rent, the current "safety net" has no problem with homelessness.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#433

Post by JDiculous »

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…

What do we currently do when someone faces a financial emergency or spends their whole welfare check on drugs? Last time I checked there's no government program to fund your emergency expenses.

Basic income isn't a cure for all problems, it's just a massive step in the right direction.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#435

Post by cc_wk »

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…

If the holes of a safety net are large enough for a person to fall through, than it's not a safety net at all is it? If a tightrope walker is learning the skill, you want a safety-net that will catch them 100% of the time, until they don't need it anymore. A social safety net should be the same - relentlessly available.

Personally, I'd be fine with overlooking what I would assume to be the small number of people who would shamelessly exploit it, because I'd like to think that basic dignity and self-respect would prevent that number from ever being very large. In other words, the system would need some functional slack and it should be funded adequately so that it's not considered a "scarce resource" and the slack can be generous.

Myself, I'm ok if a system like this existed so that if I did have a problem family member, it wouldn't be assumed to be my responsibility to take care of them, and further, I don't like the idea of charities because it presumes benign wealthy people are available to fund them. It seems better, with social programs, to socialize the cost so that I can pay into a general fund so that it can be another-person (aka a professional)'s problem.

"Someone being too expensive to help" ... that makes no real sense today given how much money is swirling around. It's just a matter of what you prioritize.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#436

Post by jtuente »

LordKano wrote: post #391
acgourley wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree with you on Libertarian philosophy. Anarcho-Capitalists are not in the business of advocating that we take money, in the form of taxes, from one group to give it to another.

I hate to break it to you, but the libertarian ideology isn't a philosophy and it isn't "anarcho-capitalistic" either. It's a umbrella term meaning that a person prefers a more liberty-minded government versus an authoritarian one.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#437

Post by ska »

LordKano wrote: post #391
acgourley wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree with you on Libertarian philosophy. Anarcho-Capitalists are not in the business of advocating that we take money, in the form of taxes, from one group to give it to another.

Libertarian is not equivalent to anarcho-capitalist, so it is not quite clear what point you are trying to make.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#438

Post by TelAviv_1 »

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…

Given that 60% of Americans are obese or overweight we certainly don't need to be subsidizing food anymore.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#439

Post by avar »

haaen wrote: post #247
Bjartr wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: why should everyone work? Followup: why is having some minimum amount of resources to live on immoral as opposed to merely unfair?

First of all, not everyone should work. Be it a child that lives off of his parents' money, a stay at home mom whose bills are paid by her husband, or a young, poor but promising artist who lives in an apperment from his mecenas. BI is immoral (imho of course) because people get paid for doing nothing. It sends a message to society: laziness pays.

Being for or against policy because of the "message" it sends has historically been a pretty bad idea.

Just look at the drug war, where we don't want to send the "message" to kids that drugs are OK.

There's no telling what incentives people will actually have once BI is implemented. Maybe they'll actually be more incentivised to seek risky and rewarding work because they have a guaranteed safety net.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#440

Post by Fomite »

etendue wrote: post #339
sama wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We did consider it, and we are working with some established academics. However, I think it's a good idea to push forward alternative models of doing (and funding) research. Frankly, most of the existing institutions we thought about partnering closely with were somewhat bloated, and it would have made the whole study significantly more expensive and slower.

> Frankly, most of the existing institutions we thought about partnering closely with were somewhat bloated, and it would have made the whole study significantly more expensive and slower. Some of that "bloat" is due to compliance and ethics: has YC engaged an IRB yet? SV tech companies (Facebook, OkCupid) have shown very questionable judgement with respect to ethical considerations.

There's a reply to this elsewhere in the thread - they've said they're using an external IRB.
Post reply on HN