Live data from Hacker News

Basic Income Research Proposal

basicincome.ycr.org

141–150 of 427 posts

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Arbitrarily raising wages for everyone is the same as increasing the money supply without increasing the underlying value it represents (which causes inflation).

UBI does not do this. It doesn't "increase" the amount of money floating around, it simply redistributes a portion of the created wealth from one population (the rich) to the total population. UBI money isn't pulled out of thin air, it's taken from one group (via taxation) and distributed.

Of course prices for certain goods and services will change as a result of this wealth distribution, but to suggest global inflation will occur (ie the value that money represents decreasing within the complete system) is incorrect. Furthermore, while I obviously can't say for certain, I imagine prices for fundamental goods will not change drastically simply because UBI doesn't provide enough money for real discretionary spending. The goods/services you consume under a UBI program you already would be consuming at the same rate under the current system.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#142
post #54
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.

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.

While it is less likely, nothing is guaranteed. You assume your investments will be around until you cash them out for retirement, and they are all dependant on something not failing:

* Direct stock ownership depends on the company growing, not failing, not being bought out, etc. * Mutual funds depend on the fund manager not going under / properly managing assets. * Bonds depend on state institutions honoring them. * You can't really save for retirement in a bank because their rates of return are below inflation. You lose money in banks. * Hoarding fiat is obviously bad. * Any asset you would try to store long term is subject to market volatility at the least and potential obsolescence at the worst. You simply cannot guess what anything will be worth decades from now.

The current US administration knows full well that throwing tens of millions of people off insurance will probably cost them the disenfranchised working class that elected them in the first place and lose them their majorities in congress and the presidency. I fully expect them to stab themselves in the foot with this, since a lot of monied interests benefit from the absurdly inefficient default state of healthcare where many people depend on emergency rooms for all problems, but in the same vein repealing social security would destroy their voting base unless they made it a grandfathered in shutdown where the next Democratic administration could just reinstate it and nobody on benefits would lose benefits.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#143

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…

> Implemented on a national scale, cost inflation of basic consumer needs is a near certainty.

How so? Is there are large number of consumers that are currently not able to satisfy their current basic needs? Otherwise aggregate demand will stay the same and on the supply side nothing changed, so there is no reason why prices would change.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#144
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

BI is the opposite of socialism when it's coupled with dismantling certain pieces of the social safety net. We don't need WIC or CHIP if we have universal BI, for example.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#145
post #69

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…

The same amount? No adjustment for San Francisco vs. nowheresville, Idaho?

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#146
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…

> you need to guarantee them that stability forever

In that case, you're going to have to be content with a thought experiment, because there is no entity that can credibly make such a guarantee.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#147
post #58
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.

Isn't better psychological assistance the better solution to that problem?

Unless you are serving food directly you cannot prevent turning assistance into drugs because you can always just sell whatever you are given.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#148
post #79

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.

> I think most people would likely want more Would they, though? That's the key question that I believe this study (and others like it) fail to address. Depending on the basic income amount, I believe it would be possible to live a fulfilling (if somewhat minimalist) life without needing to supplement that income.

I would want more. Currently I don't really care what I buy at supermarkets, I can go on 2 week holidays and potentially buy gadgets I like. However I can't really afford a car or buy a home or fancy synthesizers.

With BI I could spend more, but I would still keep on working towards a relaxing financial freedom where money is not a problem at all.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#149

It blows my mind that the allegedly smart SV elite think Guaranteed Basic Income will solve more problems than it creates. But maybe there much smarter than I, and they secretly want to create these problems so they can capitalize on them. Or maybe, they want to sap the proletariat of their drive so that the elite can remain the elite forever.

I wonder the same.

My tin-foil theory: The poor are no longer able to purchase consumer goods as their entire income goes to their basic needs. With the middle class being pushed to the poor class, this will have devastating consequences for our consumerist-based economy. Thus, BI is nothing more than recession prevention.

Of course, that's probably not the case.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#150
post #85

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?

You would need a small nation state to run the experiment with its own currency and limited natural resources (as in, it can't just sell oil and distribute profits like Alaska).

It would also have to be very librial about borders and illegal immigrants to simulate the US.

I would suggest the minimum size of this nation should be around 15+ million people.

Post reply on HN