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

321–330 of 427 posts

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#321

Post by majewsky »

cisanti wrote: post #273
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.

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…

On the other hand, since you're not going to be the only one with this line of thinking, it will create a potentially large incentive for other countries to establish their own UBI to prevent a "brain drain". (It wouldn't totally eliminate the draw of the USA's UBI, though, since foreign UBIs would likely be lower.)

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#322

Post by wooter »

jedberg wrote: post #187
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?

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…

again showing that socialism causes division and tribalism. i dont want to give more money (currently near half my earnings) to the top 1% of the world (any american on minimum wage) over the current global charities I give to

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#323

Post by overcyn »

zanny wrote: post #178
moxious wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same amount? No adjustment for San Francisco vs. nowheresville, Idaho?

Certainly not. Any UBI policy has to be set for a universal basic standard of living in a contiguous zone of free movement. US citizens can live anywhere in the US - UBI reverses the current bubble of housing prices that is concentrating people in cities that then resist increasing density and thus just drives property values to infinity. It lets people who don't want to live there the option to move elsewhere that i…

So the homeless population in SF would mostly still be homeless? If UBI is unable to help those at the lowest rung of society, what's the point?

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#324

Post by Mz »

taysic wrote: post #302
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 agree with you that tech giants promoting basic income are probably only doing that as an easy and attractive answer to - what will happen to all the jobs? However, I really don't think UBI is the answer. I don't understand where the money will come from/who will do the leftover work. I think we should continue to cultivate an innovative society and new types of jobs - more appealing I think - will be created.

People that rich are used to solving certain things by whipping out their checkbook (so to speak). It may be superficially well meaning, but, no, I don't think UBI actually works. If they manage to get a UBI instituted, I think that is a case of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But, the odds seem pretty long against it being instituted in this country at all. So, that makes me feel it is mere posturing.

I do a lot of "light one candle rather than curse the dark" type projects. I try to promote things that already exist (like gig work) that I think work. I do my best to get such info into the hands of people who seem hardest hit by the societal growing pains we are witnessing.

It can be hard to measure the results of such efforts and it can be outright impossible to prove to others that it makes a difference. But, I have had experiences* that convince me that it does make a difference, so I persist.

* http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/08/for-just-few...

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#325

Post by ThomPete »

taysic wrote: post #302
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 agree with you that tech giants promoting basic income are probably only doing that as an easy and attractive answer to - what will happen to all the jobs? However, I really don't think UBI is the answer. I don't understand where the money will come from/who will do the leftover work. I think we should continue to cultivate an innovative society and new types of jobs - more appealing I think - will be created.

But what are you basing that belief on? Thats what I would like to know. Unless you don't think computers will be able to do most of the things that create fundamental value in society. Of course you can imagine all sorts of services on top (prostitution, games etc) but the idea of the job market as something that we just keep creating new jobs for is simply not backed by reality.

What fundamentally new jobs have we really seen the last 100 years besides computer engineer and how many people does that industry actually occupy. As it turns out not a lot.

Everything else is just a more refined version of things that already existed in some form or another and rapidly being replaced by technology.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#326

Post by nnfy »

majewsky wrote: post #316
nnfy wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot pull yourself up by anyones bootstraps if you dont care to, or are so far removed from functional society that you dont know how a job works, and there is no one in your family or circle of acquaintances to teach you to learn because your community is as unortunately poor and ignorant as you are. UBI is not the answer to the modern ghetto. Regardless of race. We much first address problems with culture and…

> there is no one in your family or circle of acquaintances to teach you to learn [how a job works] Sounds like you're having the wrong discussion. It shouldn't be about "UBI" or "not UBI", it should be about educating teenagers and young adults from poor families how to make a living and climb up the social ladder. (I'm going to make a guess and say that this part of the discussion is ignored because it's evident th…

I do agree that you describe the crux of the issue, I'm point it out because I believe it is the reason UBI will do more harm than good, until we address the problem of education first.

But, consider this: when we say education in the U.S., we imply westernization. Who are you to decide for someone else that their culture of ignorance is inferior to your own?

Life is complicated. I personally feel that, historically, these kinds of interventions do more harm than good. If you really want to solve a problem, you dont need to add regulations, you need to get more people on the same page, in general.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#327

Post by throwaway0255 »

Research like this is dangerous.

> 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.

Is this a joke? This may as well read: "We'd like to research the effects of Universal Basic Income. We tentatively plan to select 300 individuals from opposite sides of a freeway: 100 will receive a free roast beef sandwich, and 200 will receive a pack of airline peanuts and serve as a control group for comparison."

UBI costs 1- to 2-million dollars PER HEAD to simulate. You can't cut corners on this and still expect to get relevant data. Not only are you not getting the data you want on how UBI would affect human behavior on the scale of a lifetime, you're also totally ignoring the greater sociological impact and resulting economic impact.

The 5-year span is too short to impact human behavior, the 1000-person headcount is too small to observe any greater sociological or economic impact, and the source of the funding (willing voluntary participants interested in UBI) means we're getting zero data on how the public would feel about being forced to fund this.

This research addresses literally none of the strongest arguments against UBI.

Maybe this is cynical, but I think they might already know all of this. They're just doing it anyway because they know a horn offering 5 years of free money will get their blog a lot of attention, and they know the results of this "research" will be biased toward the pro-UBI result they already want.

I guess we can all look forward to decades of liberal arts majors citing the outcome of this research as if it means anything. It's really unfortunate too, because these are the issues that really matter.

People spend all their energy arguing about race and sex and abortion and gay marriage and cops and who gets to use which bathroom, but nothing impacts human prosperity (and suffering and death and peace and war) the way macroeconomics can. That's when policy gets real and impacts people on a scale with a lot of zeroes on the end, and when enough people are misinformed about something like this, it has the potential to take humanity down a very dark path.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#328

Post by taysic »

ThomPete wrote: post #325
taysic wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you that tech giants promoting basic income are probably only doing that as an easy and attractive answer to - what will happen to all the jobs? However, I really don't think UBI is the answer. I don't understand where the money will come from/who will do the leftover work. I think we should continue to cultivate an innovative society and new types of jobs - more appealing I think - will be created.

But what are you basing that belief on? Thats what I would like to know. Unless you don't think computers will be able to do most of the things that create fundamental value in society. Of course you can imagine all sorts of services on top (prostitution, games etc) but the idea of the job market as something that we just keep creating new jobs for is simply not backed by reality. What fundamentally new jobs have we…

> But what are you basing that belief on?

Which part of it? Not too many generations ago, many people lived entirely off the land. A large portion of people's "jobs" were displaced from agriculture and yet over time new jobs keep getting created. There are jobs that no one had even thought of that are now providing for the livelihood of many people.

Yes I believe there will also be new things that people want and new ways that other want to help them get it that will keep fueling the economy. There are things that are inaccessible to many people now that will become more everyday and "middle class".

> Unless you don't think computers will be able to do most of the things that create fundamental value in society.

No not at all. Of course I think automation can keep getting better but there are plenty of jobs that I don't see computers doing anywhere in the near term - building a house, paving a street, cooking food, being a nurse, being a garbage man, etc etc.

> What fundamentally new jobs have we really seen the last 100 years besides computer engineer...

Um seriously? I know people who literally are "social media managers". I know people who sell eBooks for a living or do Youtube. I know folks who attempt to at least live off the music they make.

These are just "new" jobs that no one could have envisioned before. But think of all the greater demand there could be existing jobs. I have a friend in Fiji and apparently there nearly everyone has a housekeeper, even "middle class" people. There is a demand for stuff like that even in America - people keep pushing toward whatever improves their standard of living as long as they can afford it.

Technology is growing fast but its far from the only thing desired by people.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#329

Post by [deleted] »

afpx wrote: post #275
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…

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 fe…

[deleted]

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#330

Post by ubi_now »

rory096 wrote: post #161
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

No, this is way off.

MMT doesn't model fiscal policy as unconstrained in real terms, only nominal terms. And given the legal authority, of course a sovereign issuer is always able to spend. In this case spending is merely typing digits into a computer. This fact doesn't imply deficits/debt "aren't relevant", but rather deficits/debt work very differently for the currency issuer as opposed to the currency user.

Post reply on HN