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

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

#171

Post by Supermancho » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:19 PM UTC

lidHanteyk wrote: post #155

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 optimiz…

> If you can't answer them, then it is because you fear their answers.

Or they object to the obvious answers and rather strike out emotionally. How dare you sir!

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

#172

Post by airstrike » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:20 PM UTC

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #12

> The three-year, $150-million program Three year. Would you quit your job, and move somewhere cheaper if you knew the money will run out after three years, and you'll have a three year gap in your CV? Are there really no lottery winners winning lifetime monthly payouts to study? Because, if you gave me 5x average earnings for three years, I wouldn't quit my job. But if you guaranteed the money for the rest of my lif…

> Three year. Would you quit your job, and move somewhere cheaper if you knew the money will run out after three years, and you'll have a three year gap in your CV?

Short-term thinkers vs. long-term thinkers

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

#173

Post by stevenwoo » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:20 PM UTC

snarf21 wrote: post #37

stevenwoo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have a pilot project - the Alaska Permanent Fund, it's been running since 1976.

This is very true. Honestly asking: Is it working? I haven't seen lots of data on the topic. I also know the climate and endless day/night issues weigh into this too. I'm curious if academia sees this as a success or not.

This study was in 2018 updated in 2020 - does not cause decline in work by recipients. https://www.nber.org/papers/w24312

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

#174

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:21 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #166

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's actually true that rising wages result in higher rents. It's true in places with a constrained housing supply, i.e. restrictive zoning. Which is common in urban areas. But what you have there is a zoning problem, not a UBI problem -- evidence being that it's also true of higher wages and lower unemployment etc. In unconstrained areas higher demand for housing causes more housing to be built, which prevents hou…

Agreed that there's additional margin we can get with less restrictive zoning, but land is ultimately supply constrained. More importantly, high-quality (previously defined as arable, now defined as "close to good jobs/services") is certainly constrained as a matter of physical distance.

Land is supply constrained, which causes housing to cost more in urban areas because constructing taller buildings costs more. But the limit on housing supply even in urban areas, absent restrictive zoning, would be that construction cost at any plausible level of demand.

We know how to build 100 story buildings but there is no place on earth where you can find a hundred square miles of nothing but 100 story buildings.

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

#175

Post by ethanbond » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:21 PM UTC

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #131

ethanbond wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. It's true of anything that causes the poor to have more money. "The conclusion of this argument is deeply inconvenient, therefore the argument is wrong." It's actually true that rising wages result in higher rents. It's plainly obvious that this is the case - otherwise why would anyone care about rent explosion wherever Amazon decides to put HQ2?

> It's actually true that rising wages result in higher rents. Do you have a study you can point to, since this is trivial?

Aside from self-evident truth, here's a study on just the impact of rising wages for the absolute lowest wage earners: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/94238/1/MPRA_paper_94238.pdf

> I empirically analyze the causal impact of the minimum wage increase on housing rents in the United States and Japan. In both countries, minimum wages hikes increase housing rents in urban areas: 10% minimum wage increase induces 1%-2% increase in the United States and 2.5%-5% increase in Japan.

Now imagine a 10% raise for every earner.

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

#176

Post by Cthulhu_ » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:22 PM UTC

throwaway13337 wrote: post #5

The issue I see with basic income is that most money is spent on housing and health care. These two things are supply constrained so it's more of an auction for who can afford them. With basic income, we may just raise the cost of those things. This problem wouldn't appear in a study that distributed to only some individuals. We need to solve the regulatory or otherwise organizational problems of these things to prov…

This is a concern I have as well; if everyone has the same income, nobody has? I'm afraid it would just bump inflation by an X amount. If everyone's base income goes up by 10% due to basic income, wouldn't that just be offset by prices going up 10% because everyone can afford that 10% anyway?

Plus, housing prices are already ridiculous and still climbing; it's at a point now where people need an income in addition to their normal wages to be able to get a house.

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

#177

Post by karatestomp » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:22 PM UTC

Timpy wrote: post #73

camelNotation wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are guaranteed income, you aren't bound to specific regions or locations. You can move to places with cheaper land and healthcare systems with less overcrowding. You can work less lucrative jobs in those locations and find customers for your work because everyone including the local residents of those rural areas, will have new money to spend. Local regions would see an influx in cash, allowing for small busin…

A lot of people rely on friends as non-monetary resources. If I get locked out of my car right now I'll call a family member to bring me a spare key. If my car is acting up I have a friend that will look at it for me. I do a lot of tech support in return, not necessarily in exchange for other services in a direct way. It's just being part of a community. At least in my world (midwest US) I cannot imagine moving to an…

Having close family nearby is worth a hell of a lot of money by non-FAANG-wage standards. Hundreds to thousands of dollars a year in saved vehicle and equipment rentals or purchases, Ubers (car breaks down, need a ride to work), and so on. If you've got kids and have some nearby family happy to provide child care, we're talking hundreds a year in babysitters on the low end to many thousands if they can replace daycare, before/afterschool care, that kind of thing. That's a lot of money to most people.

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

#178

Post by nradov » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

auiya wrote: post #162

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.

I'd be willing to bet in most workplaces, about 20% of the workforce is dead weight - especially those in the management chain.

Very few workplaces have 20% management. A few businesses have experimented with radically flattening the organization and cutting out management layers; this has generally not improved productivity or financial results.

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

#179

Post by patentatt » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:23 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…

I think it would be hugely advantageous to my children if they had two parents who could dedicate themselves full time to raising them. In what world is having a parent stressed out and absent most of the time good for kids?

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

#180

Post by swebs » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:24 PM UTC

hadiz wrote: post #98

jimbokun wrote: post #47

> The project worked by recruiting low-income people and couples, offering them a fixed payment with no strings attached that worked out to approximately $17,000 for individuals and $24,000 for couples. Why discriminate so heavily against couples? It creates every incentive to lie about your relationship status. Or to avoid sharing a household altogether, creating greater economic inefficiencies and less built in soc…

It's because if you're in a relationship, you're considered a more valuable member of the society. Because it signals that someone has selected you to be around for a prolonged amount of time. Being single is more expensive in a big city.

It is punishing couples, not rewarding them. The amount given to two single people is $34,000. The amount given to two people in a relationship is $24,000.