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

Basic Income Research Proposal

basicincome.ycr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 427 posts

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#81

Post by atiffany »

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…

I think you're right at least to the extent that this complicates drawing conclusions. Another issue I see is that in this study we're talking about a single household in a likely poor community getting a basic income. This is totally different from a scenario where the recipient knows that everyone else in their community is receiving a basic income too. Imagine this: a woman in a poor community who works a low-paying job starts receiving a basic income. Her boyfriend loses his job, and he starts to rely on her for support. In a world where both parties have a basic income, she'd have an easier time eventually telling him he needs to get out on his own feet, but in this scenario, she's the one with this "extra money."

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#82

Post by canjobear »

A huge part of what makes basic income appealing is that it is unconditional and guaranteed. Otherwise it seems like it would create unsafe levels of government control.

For many people, BI would end up being a large portion of their income, such that losing it would be catastrophic. Now those people would become beholden to any government demand made on penalty of revoking BI.

If a government enacts unconditional BI in the year 2020, who's to say they won't change their minds in 2028 and make it conditional on good behavior?

Are there any mechanisms that could make basic income a true unconditional guarantee?

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#83

Post by kolbe »

mfoy_ wrote: post #65
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…

That's the end game, certainly, but having guaranteed income and additional programs doesn't hurt the experiment. The idea is you can help pay for UBI by cutting the then-superfluous programs. But the benefit for people is in having the unconditional safety net, not in having access to only one program.

In the end, though, isn't that just an observation of how people behave with marginally additive wealth transfers? Shouldn't we have enough people who chose the annuity option of a lottery or had an unknown trust bequeathed to them to adequately study this phenomenon? I thought the real idea to be tested would be to take away the $1000/mo section 8 house, and instead give the recipients $1000/mo, and just see if they can more effectively use that resource.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#85

Post by eganist »

neilwilson wrote: post #74

The design is flawed from the start. If you have any sort of income guarantee in a system where (i) there are others in the same currency area who don't receive the income (ii) the amount is insufficient to live on (iii) there are insufficient jobs overall in the economy for all that want them (iv) it isn't permanent then all you actually have is a tax credit system with a different withdrawal mechanism. https://medi…

Given that the discussion is a research proposal to test basic income as a concept, rather than focus your comment on dismissing the concept of basic income (which it's worth noting is totally fine to do but isn't relevant to the thread), why not propose changes to refine the study so that it may more effectively assess whether basic income is viable?

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#86

Post by chimeracoder »

ianai wrote: post #78
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,…

The way that question was worded was a straw man. I’m referring to a general principle regarding transfer payments. They’re usually more simple ways to reach a desired outcome than alternatives.

> The way that question was worded was a straw man. I’m referring to a general principle regarding transfer payments. They’re usually more simple ways to reach a desired outcome than alternatives.

Yes, and I'm explaining that that statement isn't true (in the sense of consensus among economists) in any way that is applicable to public policies. Certainly not this one, because that's explicitly not a dichotomy being proposed - there's no tradeoff being proposed between the $1000 stipend and all of the other forms of public assistance that the participants could be or are receiving.

It's only true (in the sense of consensus) on a micro level, looking at the value to an individual of cash vs. in-kind payments, ignoring secondary factors, ignoring externalities, and ignoring positive or negative feedback. That's not a relevant framework when discussing public policy.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#87

Post by sharemywin »

My guess on how it will turn out:

1. People given Basic income and minimal addictions will fair best 2. People without basic income and minimal addictions will fair second best 2. People without basic income and addictions will fair third best(drugs, major alcohol, internet/game)

4. People given basic income and addictions will fair worst(drugs, major alcohol, internet/game)

I'm probably completely wrong. 3 and 4 could be switched in which case Basic income would be always better.

My general premise is giving people with a strong addiction money without some kind of life structure is a bad idea.

Please don't down vote me if you disagree. Please just comment on how you disagree.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#88

Post by CapsAdmin »

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…

This assumes people will enjoy a 5 year vacation though. In Norway if you're chronically disabled you can apply for something that seems very similar to basic income. I'm in that system and in my experience most of the people I know in this system are bored. It could be because all their friends are working so it's difficult to meet new people, there's also that this system is for disabled people and people with mental issues could find it difficult to meet other people, etc.

I remember working somewhere where I was being tested before getting into this system and I met plenty who said they were heavily advised not to go back to work by their doctors. They want to do /something/ because being at home watching TV gets boring after half a year. So they were sent to that place in the meantime. I have other friends who are in this system who end up working in charity somewhere.

But most of my friends i met in this system ended up finding a job, despite being promised permanent "universal income".

In the past if you tried to work somewhere while being in this system, and it worked but you got sick again you'd have to reapply (which is a very long process) but now it's changed so it acts more as a safety net in case working somewhere doesn't work out for your health. I've heard this is to encourage people to work and I've heard (from the people who work in the system) that it's successful so far.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#89

Post by Mz »

ThomPete wrote: post #66
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…

I think you are right but for the wrong reasons. The whole point about Basic Income (at least the unconditionally one) is that there are not going to be any jobs (or very few and only for highly talented people). And even if there are jobs it will always be worthwhile working (as long as it's unconditional) So if you, like me, believe that's the case, the whole discussion about whether people want to take a job or no…

The whole point about Basic Income (at least the unconditional ly one) is that there are not going to be any jobs (or very few and only for highly talented people).

If there are no jobs, it will be because we designed it that way, not because it was inevitable. Tech giants proposing basic income as the solution to their lazy lack of desire to figure out how to better distribute work tell glowing stories of how lovely it will be for low paid workers to get this extra money. They never actually explore the scenario they are actually proposing that all you get is $10k-$20k and you have little or no hope of getting a job at all ever again.

That would be a dystopian nightmare and I think it is likely to end in bloody revolution.

Lots of hopeless people with nothing but time on their hands who are being completely fucked over by the system with no way out of this black hole but just enough money to keep eating well, even if they are living in a tent, sounds like a recipe for creating a well trained guerrilla army.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#90

Post by satyrnein »

Jedi72 wrote: post #57

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 as…

If you're getting a basic income, presumably you buy health insurance with it, right?
Post reply on HN