Basic Income Research Proposal • Hacker News Board

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#111

Post by eduren » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 4:30 PM UTC

canjobear wrote: post #82

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…

Definitely a big concern.

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

Maybe a government backed cryptocurrency? One that distributes the BI through some sort of immutable smart contract? Lots of problems with the approach, but maybe we can solve enough of them.

Now, whether our current governmental or political realities would ever give up control in that manner is another story :(

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#112

Post by kolbe » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 4:31 PM UTC

sharemywin wrote: post #87

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 cou…

Agreement/disagreement are not the only reasons for the voting system. Relevance is important, too.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#113

Post by bduerst » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 4:31 PM UTC

xienze wrote: post #107

laser wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the case of BI, I disagree. Politicians will see this for what it really is -- the most direct way to buy votes (by promising increased BI). It would be quite popular with both parties, I'm sure.

One party's platform is built on the fear of socialism - they will most definitely oppose this and use it to get votes, but by egging it publicly.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#114

Post by jacalata » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 4:32 PM UTC

CapsAdmin wrote: post #88

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 ment…

This doesn't assume they'll take a 5 year vacation at all. It's the difference between deciding to become an artist because you know you'll never worry about money, and deciding to study accounting so you can eventually have an accounting job you don't care about that will support your evening art practice.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#115

Post by xienze » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 4:34 PM UTC

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…

> or very few and only for highly talented people

How many people and jobs are we talking about, if these are the jobs expected to support the vast majority of the populace? And on a related note, why would these people not feel resentful that (by necessity) a major chunk of their earnings is directed towards everyone else?

Assuming that humans will behave differently and be driven by different things than they have _for millenia_ is foolish, and why BI will never work.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#116

Post by billmalarky » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 4:34 PM UTC

eric_b wrote: post #92

liquidise wrote: post #30

One factor that would be lost in a controlled, basic income test is the inflation effect. Implemented on a national scale, cost inflation of basic consumer needs is a near certainty. On a controlled test of 1000 people inflation would be nearly impossible to achieve without localizing the test to an absurd degree. I could see this test could serving as a dataset for calculating anticipated inflation rates on a nation…

Yep, basic consumer staple price inflation is something I never see addressed with any satisfaction when people are talking about UBI. Housing prices and rent will assuredly rise proportionally to the basic income amount if this were to be implemented nationally, so wouldn't pumping all this money in basically just have the effect of increasing inequality?

>Housing prices and rent will assuredly rise proportionally to the basic income amount if this were to be implemented nationally, so wouldn't pumping all this money in basically just have the effect of increasing inequality?

Unlikely. UBI removes the connection between location and income. As a result you can move to somewhere incredibly cheap to live since there's no need to be in an in demand market in order to have a nice job.

Housing is really quite cheap in the US. With Real Estate you pay for the location not the actual land or building.

Of course people won't necessarily want to move away from their "hip" city, but UBI is "basic" and if you want to stay in a high demand area you will have to supplement UBI with work.

As for basic consumables, demand is unlikely to go up for these fundamental goods because people are _already_ consuming them at their basic required levels under the current system (toilet paper, eggs, milk, bread, chicken, beans, rice, birth control, etc).

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#117

Post by Jedi72 » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 4:34 PM UTC

Guvante wrote: post #109

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…

> Make free public housing that all citizens have a right to ask for. Median rent in the US is $934 thus this one benefit costs the US goverment as much as this proposed BI would. Unless we are talking about housing where people aren't which is likely a non-starter for a slue of reasons.

To me that only highlights how prohibatively expensive it would be to give BI to people in any amount that would really move the needle

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#118

Post by hduwvzvshsuz » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 4:35 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…

I disagree that everyone would be depressed. Cityfolk probably but they deserve it because they will be the ones voting in ubi. They will also be the ones starving when us country people start only making enough food for ourselves and spend our days at the river drinking beers and fishing or hunting

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#119

Post by billmalarky » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 4:36 PM UTC

eduren wrote: post #69

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…

>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 without being motivated to find a job. That's why I always clarify that an essential piece of Basic Income is that it is unconditional . Whether you're on the bottom rung of society or the top, employed or unemployed, basic income should be the same amount. When the…

If it isn't unconditional and universal, it's just welfare under a different brand name with the same inefficiencies and rent seeking political problems.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#120

Post by bduerst » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 4:38 PM UTC

billmalarky wrote: post #102

liquidise wrote: post #30

One factor that would be lost in a controlled, basic income test is the inflation effect. Implemented on a national scale, cost inflation of basic consumer needs is a near certainty. On a controlled test of 1000 people inflation would be nearly impossible to achieve without localizing the test to an absurd degree. I could see this test could serving as a dataset for calculating anticipated inflation rates on a nation…

Inflation is a result of the money supply growing faster than the national wealth it represents. Example: US goods & services increase in value 5% but the Fed increases the money supply by 8% leads to inflation - the money/value abstraction is out of sync in such a way that money represents less value. Wealth redistributions don't cause inflation. The money abstraction still represents the same amount of wealth, it j…

That's one cause of inflation. Another cause is raising the income for everyone (i.e. minimum wage, etc.).

There exist goods and services with prices that are a function of income-elasticity, meaning that they inflate with the more money that people make (e.g. housing). This is one of the reasons that many welfare programs are targeted spending, like food stamps or medicaid.