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

131–140 of 427 posts

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#131

Post by billmalarky »

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…

Makes sense but I still imagine addicts with UBI will fair better than people with addictions under the current system.

It's _way_ easier to be a functional addict if you have financial stability. The real problems with addiction (crime, disease, etc) start to compound when you can't afford the habit.

I do see a lot of existential crises occurring in people born under the current system who transition to a UBI lifestyle. Probably less so for those born into UBI.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#132

Post by vertex-four »

IncRnd wrote: post #128
LoSboccacc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The question really isn't whether someone person on Hacker News would want to work. A better question would be, "how many would report their work out of an entire country was offered a basic income?" There are already data points for comparison, when that question is asked.

Most people on Hacker News are really not any different from anyone else in their country - they're just in a different line of work. The idea that you're a better/more moral person if you get paid more is a fallacy.

An interesting question is "can we reasonably automate things that people currently get paid less for than a basic income would be, or will we have to pay them more, and if we have to pay them more, what will be the economic effect of that?"

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#133

Post by RhysU »

Jemaclus wrote: post #18
koolba wrote: post #6

> We tentatively plan to randomly select 3,000 individuals across two US states to participate in the study: 1,000 will receive $1,000 per month for up to 5 years, and 2,000 will receive $50 per month and serve as a control group for comparison. So obvious question on many minds, " Where do I sign up for the free money? " Also, will it be randomly selected or will the selection criteria factor in cost of living, curr…

It says in the quote that you quoted that it will be randomly selected individuals across two states. ;)

So how do we lobby for our state?

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#134

Post by tomp »

bduerst wrote: post #124
billmalarky wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 hav…

If people in every location have their income increased, then the housing prices inflate in every location. Saying, "People can just move" is missing the point. It isn't that they can't afford to live where they are now, it's that BI will be absorbed by price inflation everywhere .

I think it's you who's missing the point.

A big reason for the current rise in real estate prices is urbanisation (centralisation of population in big urban centers) - e.g. London, NY, SF, and plenty other cities. (The other reason is foreign investments, but I'd argue the investment comes after the initial rise in prices, simply because real estate is perceived as a good investment opportunity.) This urbanisation is to a large extent driven by the fact that the most high-paying jobs are available in these cities, which consequently also increases the availability of lower-paying jobs. I.e. people move to cities to succeed/earn money.

If you remove the last implication - if people can earn a living without moving to big, overpopulated cities - then arguably the concentration of population would drop and the "bubble" would pop/deflate.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#135

Post by bduerst »

xienze wrote: post #130
bduerst wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If we're living in a world where BI is a reality, it will be embraced. Once social programs are implemented, they're nearly impossible to remove -- see ObamaCare. Republicans have given up on going back to the old system and have, well, embraced a tweaked ObamaCare under a new name. They'd do the same with BI. "Democrats promising $30K BI? Well we're gonna do $35K!"

This is circular logic. In order for BI to become a reality, it first must be embraced. In order for BI to be embraced, it must first be a world where BI is a reality.

You keep referencing ACA, but there is currently a new bill to repeal it: https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/06822f49-...

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#136

Post by mattmanser »

ghaff wrote: post #123
nimos wrote: post #103

I think peoples choices in a situation like this will be wildly different than if there was a government provided basic income that was available forever, or at least had the appearance of being available forever. Having extra money for a couple years doesn't let you permanently exit the workforce in the same way a permanent basic income would. As well I think for established people with kids and other commitments 10…

>Rent a cheap house with friends, smoke weed, and play videogames sounds like a pretty decent option to a lot of 18 year olds. Or even younger maybe? I suspect a lot of people here don't appreciate this because they (and many of their friends) have a much different mindset. But I can easily see a lot of that sort of behavior and then, ten or fifteen years in, they decide they want something more out of life, start a…

I suspect you haven't met many of these type of people.

They spend a couple of years doing that, get bored and get on with enhancing their lives. The biggest stoner/gamer I knew is now an extremely well paid city guy. I lived in a dead town and the extended 100 or so people from my age group that I knew in my teens and twenties, a large amount of whom spent a lot of time gaming/smoking, now occupy a huge variety of positions in society across the country (and some the world) in their 30s. I can actually only think of one person who's still a bit of a waster.

Most people actually want to have a good life and you and the parent are simply snobs who don't know the sort of people you so condescendingly talk about.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#137

Post by amelius »

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…

Can't we just have lotteries that have lifelong basic income as prices? It would mean free research data.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#138

Post by bduerst »

tomp wrote: post #134
bduerst wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people in every location have their income increased, then the housing prices inflate in every location. Saying, "People can just move" is missing the point. It isn't that they can't afford to live where they are now, it's that BI will be absorbed by price inflation everywhere .

I think it's you who's missing the point. A big reason for the current rise in real estate prices is urbanisation (centralisation of population in big urban centers) - e.g. London, NY, SF, and plenty other cities. (The other reason is foreign investments, but I'd argue the investment comes after the initial rise in prices, simply because real estate is perceived as a good investment opportunity.) This urbanisation is…

You're assuming that there can only be one cause of real estate price increases.

Housing prices are a function of income elasticity - raising the income for everyone will raise housing prices for everyone. Note - this is not the only way that real estate prices can increase (as you described urbanization), but it is one that BI would cause.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#139

Post by TCM »

bduerst wrote: post #135
xienze wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're living in a world where BI is a reality, it will be embraced. Once social programs are implemented, they're nearly impossible to remove -- see ObamaCare. Republicans have given up on going back to the old system and have, well, embraced a tweaked ObamaCare under a new name. They'd do the same with BI. "Democrats promising $30K BI? Well we're gonna do $35K!"

This is circular logic. In order for BI to become a reality, it first must be embraced. In order for BI to be embraced, it must first be a world where BI is a reality. You keep referencing ACA, but there is currently a new bill to repeal it: https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/06822f49-...

The argument from the parent posts rely on ACA being repealed already. If the ACA does get repealed then the above arguments hold but this hasn't happened yet.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#140

Post by Guvante »

jrowley wrote: post #96
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

Presumably, the amount given could be on a sliding scale, where more wealthy people receive less money, but I'm sure there would be challenges to such a system. Personally, I'd love an extra 1k / month, but I rather see that go to a lot of other people before me.

No reason to complicate things. Everyone gets 1k/month and everyone's taxes go up.

The hard part is figuring out where to take the money to cover the difference.

Post reply on HN