Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce? • Hacker News Board

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#111

Post by Spooky23 » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 6:36 PM UTC

gph wrote: post #97

magduf wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the UK, a back-of-a-napkin calculation showed that all current benefits equally divided into a single BI would be around £4K, Does that back-of-a-napkin calculation include the savings you'd get by shutting down most of the government bureaucracy involved in administration of current benefits and not paying salaries to all those government workers? In any country, a huge amount of the money spent on benefits are…

>a huge amount of the money spent on benefits are used just for administration. I think a lot of people way overestimate the administrative costs. For example U.S. Social Security administrative costs are around 6 billion a year. Sounds like a lot but it's only 0.7% of the total cost of the program[1]. Sure there's a handful of different programs all with their own costs, but it's maybe 20-50 billion a year. That's n…

SSA gives away money, administers programs and adjudicates disability claims. It’s nothing, relatively speaking.

The lifting for social services is at the state and county level. There’s probably 3 million people engaged in that function, depending on what you scope into it. I betcha there are 10,000 people just doing children’s services in NYC.

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#112

Post by Carlton87 » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 6:38 PM UTC

dev_dull wrote: post #33

bryanlarsen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So to get a BI of £12K, average taxes would have to go up by £8K per person. And since about 2/3 of the adult population are taxpayers, that gives £12K per taxpayer, which balances the payout they'd receive from BI. People with above average incomes would pay into BI, and those with below average incomes would net from BI.

In other words, legally redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but that’s what this program is.

Which will cause the upper middle class to stop working as hard, because why bust your ass for not much of a better life. Fall back down with the common class which would cause the whole thing to fail.... god I hate socialism.

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#113

Post by undergrowth54 » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 6:40 PM UTC

clarkmoody wrote: post #55

bryanlarsen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moving money from rich people to people much more likely to spend it rather than hoard it should result in a significant GDP boost.

You misunderstand the fundamental mechanism for improving standard of living: productivity gains. Consumer spending does not improve productivity. Rather, investment in capital goods (by those rich hoarders) leads to productivity growth.

But those productivity gains need to be directed efficiently, which requires some mechanism for the market to know the needs of a broad swath of the population. People get to vote on what problems need solving and that directs productivity growth as capitalists chase revenue.

However, if income is too highly concentrated, then folks with serious problems don't get many votes on what problems need solving and the folks who do get those votes are disconnected from those with more dire problems.

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#114

Post by TomMarius » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

jostylr wrote: post #107

curtis wrote: post #14

There ought to be a name for a minimal UBI that can allow people who are normally just scraping by to bridge short periods of unemployment, unexpected expenses etc. £4K wouldn't be much for the average Hacker News reader, but for people on minimum wage it could make a real difference. You can't really call this "Basic Income" though, because that term comes with the build in assumption that it's enough for a person t…

Universal Dividend, the idea being that we all are investors in the world around us, particularly in the act of creating the next generation and staying alive to be the workers, consumers, etc. So everyone gets a cut of the general profits. If one is against this idea, then ask why any investor of money into a company should get money back from it when they did no explicit work for it? If you reject the universal div…

> If one is against this idea, then ask why any investor of money into a company should get money back from it when they did no explicit work for it?

Because they did. They put their capital (that they worked for, or their ancestors did) at risk so someone could use it. It's only fair that they get a cut.

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#115

Post by zackmorris » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 6:45 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #29

The big problem with UBI, aside from how to pay for it, is that it will not survive as either universal or basic once the voters get their hands on it and decide that, say, UBI benefits should be cut for felons, increased for single mothers, indexed to the cost of rent, etc. In other words, we have a bunch of different welfare standards for people in different situations because that is what succeeds politically, and…

This is my biggest concern as well. Just to address your points:

* My firm belief is that once felons do their time, their debt is paid and they should be full citizens again. They should definitely have the right to vote, although gun ownership might need to be addressed on a case by case basis for violent criminals for the safety of society. So UBI might need nondiscrimination laws attached to it.

* If UBI is per capita, then a single mother with 2 children who doesn't receive child support would immediately see a roughly 3x increase in funds. This could be used to dissuade special cases for allocations.

* Rent will almost certainly go up in places that have no appreciable disposable income currently. This may be a straw man argument however, encapsulating the fallacy that inflation would increase with UBI. If no additional money is being printed, then prices will even out somewhere else. For example, people might be able (as a whole) to afford mass transit or urban renewal projects which would open up competition for cheaper housing in other areas.

Aside from specifics, I see your point however that people working for the general welfare may inadvertently undermine the efficacy of UBI. This is probably the single biggest threat to it, since I don't see any serious technical or financial hurdles.

I'd vote to start everyone with a UBI plus a stipend that adds up to each welfare recipient's current payment (financed with debt initially). Then put a hold on welfare increases for 3-5 years. My guess is that the federal government wouldn't end up paying substantially more than it does now, although I'd like to see a study/projection on that.

Also this all needs to happen outside of self-funded agencies like social security. I think that sacrificing so-called entitlements for UBI would be unethical, since people have paid into social security their entire lives.

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#116

Post by allemagne » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 6:48 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #30

snarf21 wrote: post #9

I find this mostly click bait. We should expect results like this or frankly better. Results from one small African village are not globally applicable. The issue is where does the money come from and is it truly universal. All the experiments to date have been of the "we gave free money with no restrictions to X thousand people for Y months and it was great". This is necessary but not sufficient research. We could h…

I'm still waiting for the UBI trial that includes allowing everyone receiving it to vote for how much the UBI checks are for. That aspect never seems to get included for some reason.

Any democracy could decide to write a check to its voters now.

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#117

Post by marcosdumay » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 6:51 PM UTC

dev_dull wrote: post #81

magduf wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is simple: legislate so the very wealthy can't avoid it, while remaining in the country. It's really not that hard: if they have assets here and reside here, then you tax them, and seize them if necessary. The only reason this isn't done is because too many people vote for politicians who pass laws favorable to the very wealthy.

You don't think they've tried to "legislate" it so people can't avoid it? It involves guns and prisons.

No, I don't think that. The one thing governments don't try is to homogeneously tax rich people.

I do think governments all over the world work hard to find some way to tax their foes and let their friend pay a pittance. At the same time, they don't care any bit about the people with just barely a surplus, that end up collectively paying most of it.

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#118

Post by insickness » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 7:02 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #30

snarf21 wrote: post #9

I find this mostly click bait. We should expect results like this or frankly better. Results from one small African village are not globally applicable. The issue is where does the money come from and is it truly universal. All the experiments to date have been of the "we gave free money with no restrictions to X thousand people for Y months and it was great". This is necessary but not sufficient research. We could h…

I'm still waiting for the UBI trial that includes allowing everyone receiving it to vote for how much the UBI checks are for. That aspect never seems to get included for some reason.

Great point.

Politician #1: "I'm going to increase UBI to $2000!"

Politician #2: "I'm going to increase UBI to $5000!"

Politician #3: "I'm going to increase UBI to $10000!"

I'm totally voting for politician #3!

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#119

Post by moduspol » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 7:06 PM UTC

allemagne wrote: post #116

moduspol wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still waiting for the UBI trial that includes allowing everyone receiving it to vote for how much the UBI checks are for. That aspect never seems to get included for some reason.

Any democracy could decide to write a check to its voters now.

We already do (at least in the US), in the form of entitlement expenditures, the military/industrial complex, federally subsidized student loans, and more. It doesn't happen overnight, but I don't think anyone doubts we're spending and taking on more debt than ever.

It'll just undoubtedly accelerate the issue with no feasible exit plan.

Re: Basic Income caused crime to drop by 40% and strengthened workforce?

#120

Post by zdragnar » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 7:09 PM UTC

TooBrokeToBeg wrote: post #65

zdragnar wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are trying to use a universal solution to a specific problem. Furthermore, visible homelessness is often a presenting symptom of other, non-homelessness problems. Look no further than San Fransisco or Seattle for how little throwing money at something will change the outcome. Or, look at the education system in Washington DC- highest expenditure per pupil, with sub-par results. Giving everyone for an undefined, b…

> You are trying to use a universal solution to a specific problem Wat? It (UBI) is a self described universal solution. Inability to avoid becoming degenerate (where your daily situation will gradually worsen) in the western world is not a specific problem. The idea that leveraging UBI for 2 years (which is oddly specific) is beneficial, is laughable. Almost every degenerate (not a pejorative usage here) started fro…

Based on my association with welfare workers (and one in particular that specifically works with the homeless) "visible" homelessness is most frequently a result of mental illness and / or drug abuse (which renders a person roughly at the same capability level as if they had mental illness).

Throwing money at them won't change their condition so much as providing treatment for the underlying cause that allowed them to become "degenerate" as you say.

Unfortunately, many have no desire to accept treatment- either they feel they don[t need it, don't want it (hard to give up drugs) or fear repercussions of accepting treatment (i.e. come under close scrutiny, lose freedom, get locked away, etc).

The sort of homelessness that is harder to "see", so to speak- and that's the sort of people who are temporarily out of a job and lost their home, or suffered a medical setback, or what have you. Sometimes, money is enough for them to get back on their feet. Other times, they simply lack the financial skills necessary to make wise money decisions (aka have a savings account built up for emergencies) and could also benefit from financial training to avoid landing right back in the same situation again.

No matter how you look at it, a tailored solution is more effective than throwing money at people, because the problem you see isn't necessarily the root problem that needs to be addressed.