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

161–170 of 427 posts

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#161

Post by rory096 »

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…

It should be noted that the parent is basing his conclusions on Modern Monetary Theory[0], a heretodox economic theory in which fiscal policy is unconstrained, deficits aren't relevant, and a country is always able to spend.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#162

Post by billmalarky »

bduerst wrote: post #138
tomp wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>raising the income for everyone will raise housing prices for everyone

This is a truism but incorrect in the context of this conversation.

UBI does not increase incomes for everyone. It is a wealth redistribution. Many will see their income fall, especially initially, in order to prop up the incomes of the poor and those who decide to live solely off UBI.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#163

Post by tmalsburg2 »

Kevin_S wrote: post #2

1k people getting 1k a month for 5 years = $60 million. At the end of the day, an expensive group. Really impressed by the ambition here, and hope for great success for the project. Basic Income research will be vital in the future when it actually becomes a genuine piece of public policy. Although I have little faith it will be used effectively by politicians/decision makers.

Sorry for being negative but as someone who is paid for desingning and conducting experiments I have to say that this experiment is very poorly designed. (Many of the flaws have been discussed here and at previous occasions, no need to repeat them.) The fact that they are spending $60M on this makes me sad. So much great research could be funded with this kind of money.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#164

Post by ThomPete »

Mz wrote: post #89
ThomPete wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wish it was that simple.

Technology isn't inevitable but to the extent that we wan't to reap the benefits of it is. In other word, we aren't designing anything other than our own replacements.

With regards to how SV tries to paint it thats a different discussion and have nothing to do with whether it will happen or not.

It doesn't have to be dystopian (ex. Post scarcity society) but until we get there it's going to be worse not better for a lot of people.

But I would challenge you to come up with an alternative that by and large at least compete with the reliance on technology.

The problem is that no specific part of the whole system is responsible and everyone in the system is more or less acting rationally.

So I fundamentally disagree it's not inevitable (with the above context considered)

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#166

Post by LoSboccacc »

vertex-four wrote: post #132
IncRnd wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It may also work by making basic income really basic, so there’s an incentive to still go out there and specialize.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#167

Post by eanzenberg »

jacalata wrote: post #114
CapsAdmin wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most will take a 5 year vacation.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#168

Post by ThomPete »

xienze wrote: post #115
ThomPete wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Humans are part of a larger system, that system is evolution. For millions of years evolution have favored those who adapt to a new environment.

Thats the proper perspective to understand this discussion, not pointing back to a few thousand years of human civilization, unless of course you claim that humans is the last word in evolutionary process.

If you (like me) believe technology will take over most jobs then (U)BI is so far the best model we have as it will always make it worthwhile to work.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#169

Post by xrange »

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…

That sounds awfully static. The interesting thing will be to see if people with unconditional money end up becoming addicts at higher rates. Are the study researchers planning on making the data openly available? Is it going to be cash payments, or will it be some sort of debit card where the researchers can track whether people are spending money at grocery stores, or at casinos?

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#170

Post by xienze »

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-...

No, in order for BI to become a reality you just need a Democrat majority to pass the legislation.
Post reply on HN