People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report • Hacker News Board

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#151

Post by PragmaticPulp » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:10 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #129

I want UBI and a 30-32 hour work week, so I guess I’m proposing a 20% “disincentivization”. Would fewer people in the workforce really be so bad? What’s the carbon and water footprint of all of these goods we really don’t need but we bust our humps for anyway? At this point, more robots don’t mean more of the stuff we need. they mean more stuff we don't need.

> Would fewer people in the workforce really be so bad?

Yes. Someone needs to work to produce the goods and services they use, as well as fund their UBI. The more people who opt out of working, the harder everyone else must work to compensate.

> What’s the carbon and water footprint of all of these goods we really don’t need but we bust our humps for anyway?

People dropping out of the workforce doesn't reduce the demand for those goods and services. In fact, giving people free income might increase the demands for goods and services as those people would have extra disposable income.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#152

Post by winstonewert » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:11 PM UTC

SirLotsaLocks wrote: post #96

jariel wrote: post #22

So most people 'kept working' but 25% quit, I think that kind of validates that a lot of people will quit, which is the concern. 25% is a lot. It'd be interesting to see numbers from those who were not employed, i.e. how many gained employment. The bits about 'having to drop future plans' isn't fair. Of course, people will have to adjust after losing a major source of income.

to be fair, a lot of people are stuck in jobs that don't give them the benefits they want, don't pay them enough, or just don't suit them very well but they can't quit and get a new job because they aren't paid enough for that. UBI gives people a chance to quit and not immediately be on the streets. This also creates more competition for employers to win over employees instead of creating wage-slaves. I doubt that's…

That may all be true.

But its extremely dishonest to make the headline "people kept working" when 25% of them quit.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#153

Post by baddox » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:12 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #130

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With basic income, we may just raise the cost of those things. The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. It's true of anything that causes the poor to have more money . Lower unemployment, higher wages, anything. Heck, it's true of lower healthcare costs, because people would have more money for housing, or vice versa. Housing costs and healthcare costs are problems, but they're independent problem…

Problem is the lack of colloquial objective definition of "poor". The US "poverty line" is at 80th percentile of world incomes. The US's vast welfare/entitlement system ensures few indeed net less than that line, shoring up their shortfall with trillions of $. What constitutes "poor" keeps shifting. There will always be a bottom 10%. There is ongoing increase to the standard of living, instilling a sense of "nobody s…

Why would we not want the baseline to improve over time? I genuinely do not understand the attitude that we should establish some extremely low bar like “is not currently at risk of starvation” and then never move the bar, but merely congratulating ourselves when more people pass that bar.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#154

Post by dvtrn » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:12 PM UTC

thedance wrote: post #132

dvtrn wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI is barely tolerated by the left and progressives but only under the constraint that it doesn't replace any existing social welfare programs. Where can I read some of these articulated positions for myself? Any particular articles or writers that made a substantial impression on you with these positions that you'd recommend I read?

I imagine he's talking about the response to the Yang campaign, where liberals quite rightly derided his plan to replace all "entitlement" programs with the dramatically smaller $1000/mo UBI. If someone who has been a life-long libertarian looks like he's trying to drive a wedge into social welfare programs, that's probably what is happening.

Was this just general derision in the form of "people on twitter" or had an economist somewhere made a cogent economic rebuttal? It's the latter I was interested and hoping someone could point me in the direction of. Not particularly interested in hearing what twitter person thinks about UBI-I'm rather ignorant to certain economic arguments about UBI myself, and am trying to address this, if that makes sense.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#155

Post by lidHanteyk » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #151

hinkley wrote: post #129

I want UBI and a 30-32 hour work week, so I guess I’m proposing a 20% “disincentivization”. Would fewer people in the workforce really be so bad? What’s the carbon and water footprint of all of these goods we really don’t need but we bust our humps for anyway? At this point, more robots don’t mean more of the stuff we need. they mean more stuff we don't need.

> Would fewer people in the workforce really be so bad? Yes. Someone needs to work to produce the goods and services they use, as well as fund their UBI. The more people who opt out of working, the harder everyone else must work to compensate. > What’s the carbon and water footprint of all of these goods we really don’t need but we bust our humps for anyway? People dropping out of the workforce doesn't reduce the dem…

So why don't managers and administrators work to produce things? They seem capable of labor, and they're paid extra, but they work less. Why?

Edit: You downvoted me within a minute of my posting. I asked two questions. If you can't answer them, then it is because you fear their answers.

So let's answer them! Managers and administrators don't produce things because they claim that their positions allow them to optimize labor. Specifically, their bonus pay is based upon the idea that management and administration increases output proportional to their efficacy. It follows that we should measure the output of management practices, and compensate managers according to their actual impact.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#156

Post by simonsarris » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:14 PM UTC

daemonk wrote: post #144

simonsarris wrote: post #88

This is very misleading reporting. First: All studies so far show a pretty consistent ~10% work disincentive. This is what all the detractors say when they say it disincentivizes work. So how about this one? From actually reading the study's conclusion: > Slightly less than one-fifth were employed before but unemployed during the pilot (17%) So even worse than what we've seen so far. 17% dropping out of the labor mar…

What are the demographics of those that dropped out of the work force? Didn't some UBI studies observe that while there are people that dropped out of the workforce, these people consisted of mothers that can now go back to child rearing or younger people that can now pursue an education?

It is extremely unfortunate but studies like this are almost always done by people with somewhat close-ended goals. This research in this one is mostly self reports, and then, mostly "did free money make you feel better?"

They are not recording, or interested in recording, the nature of who dropped out of the workforce and why, even though that seems like far more important, and somewhat more empirical, information.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#157

Post by Balgair » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:14 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #130

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With basic income, we may just raise the cost of those things. The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. It's true of anything that causes the poor to have more money . Lower unemployment, higher wages, anything. Heck, it's true of lower healthcare costs, because people would have more money for housing, or vice versa. Housing costs and healthcare costs are problems, but they're independent problem…

Problem is the lack of colloquial objective definition of "poor". The US "poverty line" is at 80th percentile of world incomes. The US's vast welfare/entitlement system ensures few indeed net less than that line, shoring up their shortfall with trillions of $. What constitutes "poor" keeps shifting. There will always be a bottom 10%. There is ongoing increase to the standard of living, instilling a sense of "nobody s…

> As it stands, "poor" is a moving target for which a great number of people have a vested interest in covering a consistent, if not growing, population.

Nearly all Kings and Emperors were 'poorer' than most Westerners under the poverty line of today. They had no refrigeration, antibiotics, electricity, etc. But we still agree that there are 'poor' people today, and I think we're correct to say so. Yes, it is a moving target, and thank God that it is such. If 'progress' means that we have to drag the least lucky of us up to levels of decadence that Cesar could never have though of, I'm more than on board for that. Quibbling about the exact definition of poor for all of time is useless. Charge ahead, have the 'poor' of our grandchildren's time be the wealthy of today.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#158

Post by vslira » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:14 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #151

hinkley wrote: post #129

I want UBI and a 30-32 hour work week, so I guess I’m proposing a 20% “disincentivization”. Would fewer people in the workforce really be so bad? What’s the carbon and water footprint of all of these goods we really don’t need but we bust our humps for anyway? At this point, more robots don’t mean more of the stuff we need. they mean more stuff we don't need.

> Would fewer people in the workforce really be so bad? Yes. Someone needs to work to produce the goods and services they use, as well as fund their UBI. The more people who opt out of working, the harder everyone else must work to compensate. > What’s the carbon and water footprint of all of these goods we really don’t need but we bust our humps for anyway? People dropping out of the workforce doesn't reduce the dem…

> the harder everyone else must work to compensate

I really don't want to get into this argument but supposedly productivity gains from automation/AI should make those who keep working work proportionally less to compensate non-workers.

Why I don't want to get into this argument: there's no conclusive view about UBI + automation yet, so it's all speculation

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#159

Post by lidHanteyk » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:14 PM UTC

simonsarris wrote: post #88

This is very misleading reporting. First: All studies so far show a pretty consistent ~10% work disincentive. This is what all the detractors say when they say it disincentivizes work. So how about this one? From actually reading the study's conclusion: > Slightly less than one-fifth were employed before but unemployed during the pilot (17%) So even worse than what we've seen so far. 17% dropping out of the labor mar…

As long as our government doesn't have a public service with an unlimited supply of entry-level jobs, it is disingenuous to talk about poverty as only endable by work. Poverty can be ended by money as well, and given that poverty is defined by (lack of) money, it doesn't seem right to focus on work.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#160

Post by frandroid » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:15 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #130

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With basic income, we may just raise the cost of those things. The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. It's true of anything that causes the poor to have more money . Lower unemployment, higher wages, anything. Heck, it's true of lower healthcare costs, because people would have more money for housing, or vice versa. Housing costs and healthcare costs are problems, but they're independent problem…

Problem is the lack of colloquial objective definition of "poor". The US "poverty line" is at 80th percentile of world incomes. The US's vast welfare/entitlement system ensures few indeed net less than that line, shoring up their shortfall with trillions of $. What constitutes "poor" keeps shifting. There will always be a bottom 10%. There is ongoing increase to the standard of living, instilling a sense of "nobody s…

People have studied the problem you talk about. Their statistical tool to address it is the GINI coefficient:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient