Basic Income Research Proposal • Hacker News Board

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#221

Post by nnfy » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:08 PM UTC

The idea that UBI will wipe away the ignorance and cultural dogma that keeps poor people poor is absurd.

How many lottery winners hold on to their winnings?

Let's be realistic. If you give the uneducated poor free money, the only thing that will change is how much money they have to spend on junk food and dated electriconics.

UBI as a policy in a place like the U.S. is hopelessly niave. Our culture of poverty if the typical culture of ignorant poverty. I speak as someone who lived among the poor-hell, in high school I dated two women from the same trailer park, poverty in the U.S. is about getting mine, and often times about getting one over the man.

These aren't temporarily downtrodden future intellectuals. These are people who haven't understood education or work for generations. But, on the other hand, who are we to claim our culture is superior?

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#222

Post by tmpdude01 » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

I suspect that a lot of people in favor of this idea have not actually had much contact with the poor or working class, and have not spent much time thinking about the distortions UBI would create in the economy. People in the tech industry seem to view this idea through their own prism.

A guaranteed income for the entire population would result in inflation of basic goods and services, as well as rental housing. Given a truly universal income, there would be nothing stopping people from borrowing as much as they can against this guaranteed income and spending it on a new car, or new furniture, or drugs, or going to a loan shark for any other reason.

The government would have to place restrictions on what UBI could be spent on, and limits would have to be placed on increases in rents. In effect, UBI would be a backdoor for much more government regulation.

If society wants to provide for the basic needs of people, they can always build government housing, and give people food vouchers.

The US economy is not productive enough to meet all the needs of everyone, without having to work for it. US tax revenue for 2016 was only $3.2 trillion.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#223

Post by ThomPete » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #181

ThomPete wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lon…

You are assuming an awful lot of things about me. Why would I challenge you if I wasn't intersted in what you had to say?

You completely ignore that there is no need to structure work if I don't have to hire people to produce or develop my products. This is the whole point and why I believe you are fundamentally looking at this wrong.

The industrial revolution replaced physical work, this revolution is replacing intellectual work.

You are betting on some political/ideological/moral change in people, not actually addressing the points I was making.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#224

Post by thex10 » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:10 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #203

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…

You also have to look at the effect of UBI over generations. Children growing up with UBI may never see people close to them who do actual work. I once had a summer job at a welfare/employment agency. A lot of the people who received welfare in the second or third generation often had no idea how a job works. They were late all the time or just didn't show up for a week. The social worker had to explain to them how a…

Hi, I’m someone who happened to both grow up on welfare AND watch zero people close to me work any sort of job ever.

Your comment reads to me as an implicit argument against UBI. Is that your case?

Allow to me comment from an insider perspective.

- The welfare money didn’t cause the lack of work. They were not strongly related or if anything it’s the lack of work that drives the need to take up welfare.

- It’s likely an extremely small minority of children in welfare-assisted families who see zero closely related adults working at all.

- People who grow up without working role models do have a harder time learning the ropes on the work life, on that we agree. That doesn’t mean they’re doomed to fail completely. (Saying this as someone who had no idea how to do this right but eventually learned, went through grad school, now works in tech, outearns the median income in her city, etc). Also how do you explain the many underemployed/unemployed/deadbeat kids of successful high-status parents? The connection seems rather spurious to me.

- Taking away the welfare money would do nothing to get someone employed. Instead it might endanger the family’s life. You realize that right?

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#225

Post by bduerst » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:11 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #171

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 .

Figures put 14-20 million unoccupied houses in the US. A lot of those are just rich people buying valuable real estate and hoarding it as a store of value, but a lot of them are also in locations where nobody who would want to buy them can afford to live because there is no work available. There are thousands of ghost towns in rural America which depopulated for a wide variety of reasons since the 70s but all could b…

The unoccupied homes in the U.S. is primarily due to banks holding onto foreclosed properties.

You could say, "This is a problem with the current financial system," which it is, but it's not a problem that UBI will solve.

If UBI is enacted, then prices will still inflate and people who purchase foreclosed homes at auction will continue to do so today, because they will also have the same increase in income as everyone else.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#226

Post by nnfy » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:12 PM UTC

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #215

nnfy wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A lot of the people who received welfare in the second or third generation often had no idea how a job works. They were late all the time or just didn't show up for a week. I dont understand. You have seen firsthand how entitlements ruin people, and you're arguing that UBI will be good for society? Edit: why the down votes? Are adults who do not understand the concept of a job not a problem? How else could so many o…

> You have seen firsthand how entitlements ruin people My grandfather received a very lucrative PhD offer at a very prestigious American university, but he didn't have the money to make the trip himself, and airplanes were much too expensive for him. So he found a ship in the harbor that was taking a passage to the US and volunteered to be a deck-hand. Now his grandkids, those in India and those abroad, drive cars, g…

>because it allows us to legitimatze our individual struggles

Please. Have you ever lived in poverty? The people who climb out will tell you what other poor people are like. And I'm not just talking about poverty. Look at what former Soviets have done in NYC, especially Brighton beach. They live out of the projects but stereotypically drive BMWs. The average poor person is not your aspiring PHD father, its someone who wants a quick buck for the immediate future.

UBI is textbook ivory tower politics. Poor people aren't just poor because they have no money, and by and large throwing more money at them won't solve anything.

Now if you want to argue that the waste is worth it because of people like your father, thats plausible, but acting like UBI is the answer to poverty is absurd. Not to mention that you're essentially setting a demand floor which will "unnaturally" interfere with the economy. Another potential can of worms.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#227

Post by Retric » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:12 PM UTC

greedo wrote: post #210

awjr wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good luck restricting that from future generations who will vote for more largesse...

People regularly vote to cut government entitlements. See healthcare funding in Canada which still does not cover prescription drugs or dental care.

UBI is going to be treated just the same as a tax break for the poor and likely to stay at very minimal levels.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#228

Post by badestrand » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:13 PM UTC

FreakyT wrote: post #79

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.

> 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 never understood that point. Almost everyone I know works fulltime although they could live a "fulfilling (if somewhat minimalist) life" on maybe 15h/week of work. If minimizing work would be a goal, most people would be able to do it right now.

Yes, this requires employer flexibility and the move from 40h->15h per week grants much less freedom than stopping work entirely but masses of people suddenly being content with a minimum amount of money does not sound convincing to me at all.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#229

Post by bduerst » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:13 PM UTC

billmalarky wrote: post #160

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 .

This is a misunderstanding of how both macro inflation occurs (money supply growing faster than true value of wealth it abstracts), and how price is set (supply and demand). UBI does not "create" new money and just give it to everyone (which would cause inflation). It's a wealth redistribution. That is, many people will see their income go down under UBI (probably most HN readers for example). The money supply will r…

>UBI does not "create" new money and just give it to everyone (which would cause inflation). It's a wealth redistribution.

UBI is Universal Basic Income, meaning that income is increased for everyone universally. Nobody is claiming that money is created out of thin air.

What you're thinking about is a negative income tax or some other disproportionately weighted welfare program.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#230

Post by greedo » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:14 PM UTC

billmalarky wrote: post #160

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 .

This is a misunderstanding of how both macro inflation occurs (money supply growing faster than true value of wealth it abstracts), and how price is set (supply and demand). UBI does not "create" new money and just give it to everyone (which would cause inflation). It's a wealth redistribution. That is, many people will see their income go down under UBI (probably most HN readers for example). The money supply will r…

The idea of UBI at $1K per month shows that UBI advocates don't know how to do math. The US tax revenues (combined Fed and State) are roughly $6 Trillion. Giving 150 million people $12K per year is $1.8 Trillion. Unless you raise taxes by 1/3, you're going to cause inflation.