Basic Income Research Proposal • Hacker News Board

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#51

Post by LoSboccacc » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 3:57 PM UTC

FreakyT wrote: post #43

vasco wrote: post #28

I would speculate that any end date on this scenario will invalidate results. What a person does if it is guaranteed a job for life vs 5 years is wildly different, as you'll need to make sure when those 5 years are up, you'll be ready to enter the job market again, etc. I believe the same will happen with basic income. If we want to study where people gravitate to more fulfilling jobs, feel happier and so on, you nee…

Absolutely, and this is also the problem with every* other basic income study that's been conducted over the past few decades. If you promise basic income for only 5 years, then I'm probably not going to quit my job and become an artist because I can't be unemployed for 5 years and expect to waltz back into a job. If you promise basic income "forever", then I'm far more likely to retire at 30 and plan to never work a…

Would you not work? Basic income is nearly not enough to access luxuries. Sure you should be able to live off it, but I think most people would likely want more, the difference from forced equality being that you can still work and keep that as luxury money.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#52

Post by josefresco » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 3:58 PM UTC

laser wrote: post #37

vasco wrote: post #28

I would speculate that any end date on this scenario will invalidate results. What a person does if it is guaranteed a job for life vs 5 years is wildly different, as you'll need to make sure when those 5 years are up, you'll be ready to enter the job market again, etc. I believe the same will happen with basic income. If we want to study where people gravitate to more fulfilling jobs, feel happier and so on, you nee…

If the government guarantees a basic income, you're really only guaranteed (at best) until the next election cycle. Just recently, seven years after its passing, the ACA was nearly reverted, which would have kicked millions of people off government-subsidized health insurance plans.

Also, similar to the ACA, individual states can attempt to block the roll-out.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#53

Post by SimbaOnSteroids » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 3:58 PM UTC

Jemaclus wrote: post #21

chimeracoder wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Economists largely consider payments like this to be the best way to enact policies. It gives people more options instead of trying to control through legal pressures. That's not true at all, and in fact, the last time a large number of economists were surveyed about a proposal, the response was overwhelmingly in opposition: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/universal-basic-income Many economists would agree that,…

Citation needed (from both of you).

I can't talk to the claims about economists but I can tell you that Friedman and people across the political spectrum agreed that this was good public policy. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-are...

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#54

Post by mfoy_ » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 3:59 PM UTC

laser wrote: post #37

vasco wrote: post #28

I would speculate that any end date on this scenario will invalidate results. What a person does if it is guaranteed a job for life vs 5 years is wildly different, as you'll need to make sure when those 5 years are up, you'll be ready to enter the job market again, etc. I believe the same will happen with basic income. If we want to study where people gravitate to more fulfilling jobs, feel happier and so on, you nee…

If the government guarantees a basic income, you're really only guaranteed (at best) until the next election cycle. Just recently, seven years after its passing, the ACA was nearly reverted, which would have kicked millions of people off government-subsidized health insurance plans.

That's why I have approximately 0 faith in the pension plan my government(s) have in place. I'll save for my own retirement so I'm not high and dry when they mismanage the funds or change policies or whatever.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#55

Post by goodcanadian » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 3:59 PM UTC

jjallen wrote: post #20

influx wrote: post #8

At what point does the government controlling your income start to impede personal freedom? Wouldn't any politician campaigning to increase the basic income be almost automatically elected?

Two thoughts: I'm nearly positive that basic income means _part of_ "your income", and not "your income". The intent of basic income I have read about is to increase the personal freedom and provide a flexible safety net for the poorest individuals. And for personal freedom I'm guessing you can take or leave the basic income -- but none will because it's money right? And about your second thought, you could use evide…

The freedom is freedom from immediate starvation. Rather than be forced to work a crappy job just so you can eat, you have more freedom to pick and choose your employment, spend time on education, work on art, or whatever.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#56

Post by wavefunction » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 3:59 PM UTC

anovikov wrote: post #49

roceasta wrote: post #35

I like the idea of basic income but I confess that my ideal of a basic income recipient is someone akin to the 19th-century amateur scientist subsisting on a private income whilst making original contributions to human knowledge, and, as a side effect, to society. Whereas the reality of people receiving free money might be somewhat different. There's the drip, drip welfare payments of just enough money to survive wit…

It means putting 99% of recipients, or more, into illustion which will result in nothing but a severe depression in a few years. Suddenly being able to contribute to the world in a 'larger' way, they will quickly realize that they can't - just as many startup founders. Maybe, need to meet the bills by mind-numbing work is really a blessing for most people - i had stable income almost without work for years and i got…

That sounds like Anecdata. Especially the 99% claim.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#57

Post by Jedi72 » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 3:59 PM UTC

Basic Income is often proposed in conjunction with cutting basic social services & welfare payments, thus achieving a net gain for the government. This seems to make it attractive to both the neoliberals and the neosocialismés, but I believe this is a terrible mistake that will have the exact opposite effect to what its supporters intend - there will be more poverty and debt slavery, not less. (Methodology debates aside, I generally think both sides want people to propser & be happy).

My proof is by example through thought experiment: I'm a grad student who has a bicycle accident. Without free gov healthcare I now must go into debt to either the hospital or a lender (medical purchases are just one example of an essentially non-negotiable expense). Perhaps I already had other debts, but somehow now my interest payment + living expenses payments are more than my basic income, otherwise known as the normal life of a grad student in todays society anyway - in my case BI didn't work. This is just one example of how easy it is to slide back into poverty with such a system, it could occur slower and over a few generations but sooner or later poverty is back. We just pushed the goal posts back a little bit.

Instead I believe we should leave our dealings with money to the marketplace, but should definitely act as a society to provide a good life for all citizens by seeing that their basic needs are met. Make free public housing that all citizens have a right to ask for. Provide basic but nutritious food to the populace, for free. Encourage free markets and capitalism, but see that the basic needs of every citizen are met - and perhaps a little power in the marketplace i.e. money is also a basic need, but its still only one of many. "If they didn't already exist, people would think public libraries were the most radically extreme socialism".

For these reasons, the growing popularity of BI is worrysome to me. It's just neoliberalism made pallitable by a once-in-every-few-generations wealth transfer.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#58

Post by ja30278 » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 3:59 PM UTC

kolbe wrote: post #47

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't UBI operate on the premise that it's replacing many of the existing social programs? For example, unconditional money rather than food/housing assistance. If the participants of the study also get access to these things, doesn't that severely limit the usefulness of this study? Also, $1k/mo is pretty small. Are you just hoping to observe some behavioral changes at the margin with…

There seems to be a common bait-and-switch tactic performed by proponents of UBI, in which they mention UBI as a replacement for social programs when talking about affordability, but back away from that assertion when questioned about how to handle (for example) recipients that spend all of their UBI on drugs instead of food.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#59

Post by chimeracoder » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 3:59 PM UTC

NickLamp wrote: post #22

influx wrote: post #8

At what point does the government controlling your income start to impede personal freedom? Wouldn't any politician campaigning to increase the basic income be almost automatically elected?

Is everyone currently clamoring to elect politicians that want to increase welfare and other "Great Society" programs?

> Is everyone currently clamoring to elect politicians that want to increase welfare and other "Great Society" programs?

People aren't clamoring to increase welfare because the people whom it's perceived to benefit aren't the ones who actually have the largest voting power.

People absolutely do reward politicians for securing funding for their constituents, usually in the form of earmarks, targeted tax breaks (e.g. disaster relief, geographically targeted bailouts), and stipends. In fact, it's one of the strongest predictors of support for politicians representing smaller districts.

Only at the national level (ie, when running for president) does it become problematic to be perceived as having spent Congressional funds on your own district, because the new constituency includes people who had their money "taken away" in order to provide those earmarks.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#60

Post by grecy » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 3:59 PM UTC

dsp1234 wrote: post #31

Just a bit of quick math[0]: ~323,000,000 total US population 77.2% over the age of 18 ~250,000,000 total over the age of 18 $12,000 per year per adult = $3,000,000,000,000 per year [0] - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216

How much did that recent war cost?