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

181–190 of 427 posts

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#181

Post by Mz »

ThomPete wrote: post #164
Mz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But I would challenge you to come up with an alternative

Actually, I have. I was homeless for nearly six years until earlier this month. I am medically handicapped and can't work a regular job. I was a homemaker for a lot of years, I had a corporate job for a few years and I currently do freelance writing, resume editing and I blog, which gets me a little money via ads, tips and Patreon.

UBI will solve nothing as long as we do not have universal basic health care and affordable housing. If we establish universal basic health care and create sufficient affordable housing, then the last piece of the puzzle is redistributing work. We did this once before under very similar circumstances where automation was "taking our jobs."

It was called The Industrial Revolution. It gave birth to the 40 hour work week, overtime pay and unions.

If work is structured properly and you can get a cheap SRO or similar somewhere and not have to worry about medical bills, you can cover your basic living expenses working part time. If it is well structured where you work as little or as much as you want, then people who are unambitious hedonists or who have personal burdens, like chronic health issues, can just get by without it being a dystopian horrifying black hole that seems inescapable. Folks with more energy and/or more ambition can work harder and do more with their lives.

I have written a number of pieces laying out the details. Some are listed on this page of my old blog:

http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/p/ir2.html

But I don't imagine you are actually interested. That "challenge" was most likely intended to mean "Shut up. It isn't like you have a solution."

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#182

Post by zanny »

pg314 wrote: post #143
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…

> 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.

Its also worth noting that inflation only happens like that when demands cannot be met. IE fixed quantity of goods that cannot grow, being demanded more and more over time. That is not how basic necessities work at all. If you increase the profit margin in almost any food crop or raw material by a few fractions of a percent you see dramatic investment in sating that demand because its an extremely safe profit center.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#183

Post by Falell »

staunch wrote: post #176
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.

Pensions are a great use-case for smart contracts. I would feel much safer having my retirement assured by a blockchain than a bureaucrat.

How would this work? As I understand it pensions are almost never fully funded when they begin because the costs would be prohibitive. Can a smart contract guarantee that funds that are not available now will be made available at a later date?

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#184

Post by awjr »

cisanti wrote: post #177
atiffany wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-payi…

And what about border policy? You can't have open border policy + UBI together... I mean why not try to come to America then. I would I come if I had a chance to get UBI and live there, and millions, millions of others. Would the system still work?

I think you mis-understand UBI. UBI enables 'survival' within the country. It will just about pay for a room and basic food. You want to eat steak, you will need to get a job.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#185

Post by bmelton »

pc86 wrote: post #144
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.

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.

That depends on a great deal of factors, I think.

Even if we guarantee some sort of income floor, there will still be those who, despite that guarantee, need additional assistance. Whether it's because they have more children than the average, are irresponsible with spending, are victim to a drug habit, unexpectedly lose their jobs, or succumb to medical debt, we have to come to grips with the idea that UBI won't be a cure-all.

Even if we acknowledge (and not all will) that most people who are dependent on safety-net assistance are perfectly good and responsible, depending on what the amount is, what their life circumstances are, and a myriad other factors, I don't think we can take it for granted that UBI obviates those specific-purpose programs for the remainder of those who need assistance and for whom UBI is not ideal.

Put bluntly, there are people who will take the entirety of their UBI check and spend it on stupid things, and end up without money for food, or for their childrens' health. What are we to do about them?

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#186

Post by godelski »

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 overestimate how much the average person prepares for the future. Look at the number of people who have emergency funds. 62% of Americans have So with this time frame I believe initial ideas of "I'm going to put this to savings" will quickly disappear. Five years is a pretty long time, especially when considering at how bad humans are at preparing for the future.

What I think will be interesting is to see the different spending trends over time. I would imagine the first and last years are different than the middle three. But that's just a guess.

[1]

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#187

Post by jedberg »

cisanti wrote: post #177
atiffany wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-payi…

And what about border policy? You can't have open border policy + UBI together... I mean why not try to come to America then. I would I come if I had a chance to get UBI and live there, and millions, millions of others. Would the system still work?

Presumably any UBI system would be limited to citizens only.

In combination with open borders, you do risk having a class system, where the citizens have money and immigrants don't, but at the same time, it solves the issue of certain jobs not being worth the time of someone who gets UBI (and therefore being for immigrants).

It's a tough balance for sure, and one of the main arguments against UBI (accidental creation of a class system).

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#188

Post by icelancer »

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…

>>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.

People on HN are significantly different and not even close to a representative sample. No one at any point is saying that HN readers are better or more moral, but there are huge, huge differences in technical skill, intelligence, knowledge, college attendance rates, social skills, empathy, and so forth compared to an average sampling of the population of the United States. I'll leave it up to everyone to decide which direction the arrow points in the above fields.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#189

Post by shpongled »

eduren wrote: post #111
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 s…

Nothing under control of a government is immutable. This is because governments have a power withheld from civilians: that of legal lethal force.
Post reply on HN