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

271–280 of 427 posts

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#271

Post by splintercell »

nnfy wrote: post #262
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 driv…

I am not arguing that supply if finite, I am arguing that extraction of supply is finite and if you deincentivise millions of people from working while throwing money at them, you further reduce supply and exacerbate long term economic problems. >So you're using a stereotype to make your argument? Come on The argument could have been made without the stereotype, I agree. But it is an open secret in NYC that people, e…

> The argument could have been made without the stereotype, I agree. But it is an open secret in NYC that people, especially in Soviet neighborhoods, abuse the welfare system. I'll drop it though because I only have anecdata.

I'd take those ex-soviet commonwealth welfare abusers anytime over welfare non-abusers any time.

These projects are one of the nicest and the most well maintained projects in the city. They bribe the city housing dept to win the lottery, and take the money they would have to spend on purchasing the property to maintain it.

Its almost like giving UBI to those who don't need it, give you a better society, and giving UBI to those who need it, you get more 'needs'.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#272

Post by noobermin »

laser wrote: post #37
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…

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.

Actually, the fact that it hasn't been unrolled completely yet without backlash is a testament to how angry people are when you try to take their protections away.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#273

Post by cisanti »

awjr wrote: post #184
cisanti wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No I did not. Doesn't it come as obvious that people start asking for equal treatment? Or you just build new barriers and second class citizens.

If USA would pay UBI I would do my best to somehow become citizen, there is no reason for me why I shouldn't try. And there are over 7 billion people on the planet, I'm not the only one who thinks that way. That is why I raised the question of borders/immigration + UBI. It's very different situation when it is now for illegals and also people who want to become citizens.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#274

Post by eanzenberg »

vorotato wrote: post #247
eanzenberg wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most will take a 5 year vacation.

They said without any research backing their statement whatsoever...

It's common sense if you have any interaction with US society. Not every common sense thing needs to be verified by a costly scientific study. Though some researchers try.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#275

Post by afpx »

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…

I don't completely disagree with you. I personally know two 2nd-generation 'trustfunders' who many would say don't do much. That is, they 'just' do leisure work. One plays poker part time, and he volunteers the rest of his time. The other promotes bands that she likes. But, are they really doing nothing of value? I think many people who meet them are sort of envious: seems like a nice life!

I also know more than a few 1st-generation 'trustfunders'. Some are artists, some scientists, a couple work as university professors. They certainly are all doing useful work, right?

Just look at HN as a case study. There are many people here (myself included) who could live off of their savings indefinitely. In fact, I've tried a few times. But, as others have pointed out, sitting around doing nothing is dreadfully boring. Once one removes the usual daily stressors (e.g. being able to pay for rent, food, kids, etc.), escapist behavior quickly grows dull. Believe me, when not required to manage stress, there is only so much Netflix one can watch and only so many video games one can play.

I wouldn't worry about the vast majority of Humans doing nothing. People just do stuff. It just means changing perspective of what is valuable work. There are many types of work that are valuable to Humanity even if the market can't support them.

Edit: just want to add that I would be concerned by younger adult males forming gangs. Their PFC's aren't completely formed, and they have raging hormones. In Christian western countries, it's a common saying that "idle hands are the devil's workshop". And, I find that true. So, young adult males, with nothing to do and risk-taking brains, tend to get into trouble.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#276

Post by staunch »

Falell wrote: post #183
staunch wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To the extent they are funded, that money could never be rescinded. And you could negotiate early funding as a feature now, because it would actually mean something to the recipients. There are no untrustworthy promises required.

And you could do new things based on control of your pension, which might radically change how we think of them.

The main thing that smart contracts remove is the need for trust. And that's the main problem with pensions.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#277

Post by ralmeida »

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…

On a first moment, possibly. After that, we would see how free the market really is. If it's reasonably free, the market will self-correct and prices will decrease.

A thought experiment: you have a business; now everyone has money; then prices rise "together"; so market distribution remains the same; you decide to reduce your price to the old price and your competitors don't. Now you get customers from your competitors that you didn't have before.

The amount that this happens depends, naturally, on how free the markets involved are (if free at all).

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#279

Post by billmalarky »

ctdonath wrote: post #265

This is a test of charity, not UBI. 1. The money involved is voluntarily donated, not confiscated from taxpayers - an essential difference between tax-funded vs charity. 2. 3000 recipients is vanishingly small on a state or federal level. When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say…

>When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say, basic rent rising to $1000/mo).

At first glance this seems intuitively correct, but I'd encourage anyone reading this to control+f my username in this thread for arguments showing otherwise.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#280

Post by ctdonath »

In real UBI implementation, is it considered taxable income?

Core to UBI is that since everyone gets UBI, and since I pay substantial taxes, I'd pay a minimum of $UBI in taxes and simply get it back as a UBI check for a net total of $0.

BUT... If that's taxable income, I have to pay (say) a cumulative 33% on that additional "income". Instead of a net $0, I have to pay something like $4000 in additional taxes. WTF?

Post reply on HN