Live data from Hacker News

Moving Forward on Basic Income

blog.ycombinator.com

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#491
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…

As a BI fan, this is a great question. While BI does simplify welfare distribution it does put more responsibility on the receiver. If we wanted to protect from misuse of funds we need a way to restrict how they spend their BI, like how food stamps work. BI should be spent on life necessities while earned income should be disposable and/or go into savings.

> If we wanted to protect from misuse of funds we need a way to restrict how they spend their BI, like how food stamps work.

Except, of course, that food stamps don't work for that, despite the administrative overhead that trying to enforce specific uses puts, because people can (and do) find ways to illegally convert SNAP benefits, at a discount, to cash or non-covered goods and services.

Which is among the problems that UBI is offered to solve, by eliminating the ineffective paternalistic bureaucratic administration.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#492

Good to see steps like this being made! As a slight aside, there are strong proponents who argue, based on Ricardo's law of rent [0], that any excess income above the basic subsistence level will inevitably be swallowed up by landlords in the form of rents. I'd be very interested to hear from the folks involved in this study if they have an opinion on such an assertion, and if you have any ideas on addressing that ef…

Not enough discussion to this effect. When everyone has more money, the prices of everything will probably go up.

That's true, but making the basic income unconditional is going to change the population distribution drastically. There are a lot of nice, beautiful, cheap places in America where people don't live mainly because there's no work. If you have a basic income, that changes the calculus about where you can live. So those price increases will happen, but they're likely to happen in places where prices are already very low.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#493

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…

Thanks for your comment, I also grew up in a poor immigrant family (non academic parents) and was able to move to the top 0,5% and fully agree with you.

My personal experience is that the problems poor people face (at least here in the West) often originates in their own lack of self control, impulse control, ability to cooperate and ego.

I fear if we take away all outside pressure to be productive and yes, to some degree conform to society, we will create a disaster for all of us.

Giving free stuff to someone is the worst you can do for anyone. Giving opportunities helps.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#494
post #319
post #213

People wonder "where is the money going to come from?" On a national level it could be newly issued fiat currency, which silences the "it's theft!" argument but then raises the crucial question: what about inflation? Well, there are two issues here: 1) If the people are freed up to learn or take jobs (I wish minimum wage would be abolished in any jurisdiction that UBI is given out) then more dollars would be chasing…

"newly issued fiat currency" is theft. Forced inflation is theft from people with savings etc etc etc.

I accept that some people have this broad of a concept of "theft", and I have no problem (so long as it is clear what is meant) with using the word this way, however, once it is broadened this far, I fail to see any necessary connections with the moral implications of more typical definitions of "theft".

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#495

Question: Wouldnt it make more sense to pick an more isolated ecosystem than oakland? Eg a smaller town or even a small country (eg an island country - yes sounds crazy but actually why not) Or is the goal rather to find out how people will act? (as in: get lazy or not)

I had this same thought.

Even if the goal is to study how people act, it seems that actions would be very different depending on whether your community is isolated or not.

For example, if I'm part of a small study within a city, it's unlikely that most of my social sphere would also be part of the study. Thus I might be pressured to keep doing a job I hate to avoid the stigma of unemployment.

On the other hand, if I were in a small island community where everyone had UBI I think there would be much less pressure to keep working undesirable jobs.

Also, Oakland seems like a very expensive choice. Part of the reason I supported Give Directly's UBI experiment was because they are wisely choosing an area where funding can stretch to many more people. Obviously, there are some differences based on the country's level of development, but even choosing an isolated town in the USA would be cheaper and likely more informative.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#496

Why is the underlying assumption always "as technology continues to replace jobs and generate massive wealth" in the world of BI? It seems like BI is an answer to a false dichotomy. What if we fix our society instead? What if instead of massive seeking of profiteering we actually double down on our efforts to improve lives today , right now in this very moment instead of some far distant realization of "when all jobs…

> Driven to automate. Why? To what end? If you stop and think who really benefits the most from this endless pursuit to automate, you will see it really isn't your common neighbor.

So, the alternative is to pick a level of automation that society is comfortable with, and legally enforce that we never go past it? Maybe a jobs program where we take jobs away from robots and give them to humans, like repeatedly hammering sheet metal into certain shapes?

We'll need a one-world government to ensure that while we do all this, our neighboring countries don't just invest in robots and undercut us on price.

I sympathize with what you're feeling, but basically, there's no way to get to the idyllic world you envision without powerful totalitarian overlords.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#497
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure the number is significantly smaller than that. Children under the age of 18 wouldn't get money. People in prison likely wouldn't get money. I'm sure there would be other reasons to decline some people. Such as mentally disabled. (maybe parents or care giver would receive more?) So it would probably be around 200,000,000 - 250,000,000.

> Children under the age of 18 wouldn't get money. But their parents will get some sort of bump in their BI, surely. > So it would probably be around 200,000,000 - 250,000,000. A floor of $2.4 trillion now. Downright affordable!

We would also remove all _current_ forms of welfare. No more food stamps, low income housing, maybe even medicare. I think social security would even be on the chopping block.

The total costs for all of this is no doubt close to 2 trillion. This isn't that unrealistic.

"Total Social Security and Medicare expenditures in 2013 were $1.3 trillion". [1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_...

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#498

What amazes me in this discussion about BI is that most people don't seem to realize that systems similar to BI have already been tried in Europe, and that they didn't work. I come from the Netherlands, which has always had unemployment benefits. Nowadays you get those only if you meet a bunch of strict conditions but it hasn't always been so tough. In the early eighties, there were almost no checks whatsoever. The r…

There are places in Europe [0] also experimenting with government-sponsored BI but the Netherlands is not one of those from what I understand, and what you describe is not at all what BI is. [0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-to-co...

The Netherlands is experimenting with Basic Income: http://qz.com/473779/several-dutch-cities-want-to-give-resid...

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#499
Here's a serious question. I'm like, 50/50 with whether or not I believe BI could work or not, but I really believe it can NOT work without being universal in nature.

By doing it in a small geographic area only, aren't you're already skewing your results?

These people have now an additional incentive not to leave the area, when otherwise there may have better opportunities for upward social mobility. Now you've got a closed system, so how do you handle the general move in and move outs in the area? Are new residents not welcome to it? If not now you've got a big income discrepancy. If they are welcome to it, how do you prevent a flood of new residents?

It seems like it's doomed to fail with a small sample size, for any number of reasons. Be very careful here, as this sample is a slice of real human beings, who could be impacted in real ways throughout their lives.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#500

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"

They can simply sell the card at a discount to what it's worth. The buyer can then use it to purchase goods that he needs and pocket the difference, or resell them at normal retail or more. It's a huge problem.

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/06/fraud_ri...

Post reply on HN