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

251–260 of 427 posts

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#251

Post by maxxxxx »

thex10 wrote: post #224
maxxxxx wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am not arguing against welfare or UBI. I am just saying the long-term effect may be different from what people are thinking. Especially at HN people seem to think all people on UBI will turn into artists or develop software all day. Maybe that will be the case but I have my doubts.

"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. "

People certainly can escape their upbringing but from my observation on average most people stay close to their social class. That doesn't mean that some won't do much better or much worse than their family.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#252

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #206
eric_b wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, basic consumer staple price inflation is something I never see addressed with any satisfaction when people are talking about UBI. 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?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#253

Post by chris_va »

zanny wrote: post #194
chris_va wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big difference between loaning $1T once, and getting paid back, versus giving it away every year.

You loan 1T to the poor one year and get paid back 1T from the rich the next from all those poor spending money on goods the rich sell. UBI isn't like defense spending. It isn't a black hole you put tax dollars down and get nothing out. It means tremendous goods demand for the necessities of life that is extremely stable and reliable for businesses to profit off.

No offense, but defense spending is exactly the same as what you describe. It's money that goes to hundreds of thousands of workers that spend it in the economy.

Unlike (some) defense spending, UBI doesn't intrinsically create some economic value. Increased stability would indirectly create economic value, but it needs to be more than the face value of the UBI check for it to not lead to gross inflation.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#254

Post by Karrot_Kream »

nnfy wrote: post #226
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wh…

> Please. Have you ever lived in poverty?

Yes, yes I have. I grew up in it. And most of my friends are struggling to make ends meet, working at restaurants, nail salons, and cafes. There's no glory in realizing that you can't make rent this month and you need to beg your landlord, or that after rent you have $50 leftover for a month's expenses. I've been there.

> They live out of the projects but stereotypically drive BMWs.

So you're using a stereotype to make your argument? Come on.

> Not to mention that you're essentially setting a demand floor which will "unnaturally" interfere with the economy. Another potential can of worms.

And you're arguing that supply is finite, which is the same fallacy that proponents of command economies often fall into.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#255

Post by greedo »

billmalarky wrote: post #246
greedo wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a strawman attack. Everyone knows UBI will require an increase in taxes that's fundamentally how the wealth redistribution will work.

Not a strawman at all. Many UBI proponents claim that it's more efficient, by directly paying for services already provided. Then when called on that, they switch to your strawman that "Everyone knows UBI will require an increase in taxes..."

Again, good luck trying to raise tax revenue 30% without killing the US economy.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#256

Post by greedo »

Retric wrote: post #227
greedo wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look at social spending rates by government over time. It's typical that they rise, despite attempts to restrain them. Critics call attempts to slow the growth rate "cuts" and paint the reformers as heartless.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#257

Post by grondilu »

> 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.

That's 66 million dollars, if you're wondering.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#260

Post by eduren »

greedo wrote: post #237
eduren wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

How will you work part time if there are no jobs due to robotic automation (not that I believe that's a significant problem for a century)?

I think the parent comment I was replying to was more concerned about the situation where we have UBI without full automation. In which case there may be a push for jobs not yet automated to be split into part time positions. If society really feels like keeping people employed is a moral good in the face of increasing automation, then there may be pressure to increase workforce numbers and reduce working hours. Especially possible if UBI can close the gap and maintain a safety net.

In addition, full, 100% automation doesn't seem likely to me. Service sectors of the economy may simply keep smaller human staffs in order to keep their hospitality atmosphere. Not enough to offset job loss in other sectors, but there are already plenty of businesses today that have a human element that don't _actually_ need them. It might even look like a luxury business model. No reason that will go away just because robots can do it better.

Post reply on HN