Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 809 posts

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

#211

Post by macspoofing »

dvtrn wrote: post #102
macspoofing wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Right now there are explicit subsidies for housing and healthcare. If they get replaced with a UBI in the same amount Good luck with that. UBI is barely tolerated by the left and progressives but only under the constraint that it doesn't replace any existing social welfare programs. The minute UBI advocates start pushing it as a replacement is the minute that progressives will squash it.

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?

>Where can I read some of these articulated positions for myself?

Imagine if you were to come up with a policy where you increase senior pension rates by $3000/mo but you get rid of Medicare - do you think Bernie Sanders would go for that deal? I'll tell you right now: ZERO chance he would support it. And that doesn't even take into account that there are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of jobs that support the current entitlement programs. Do you think those employees will just let you lay them off without a fight?

I don't have any links, but I have gone out of my way to find out what different groups think of UBI when I was excited about UBI a few years ago. My excitement has since deflated and I now think UBI isn't a solution to any actual issues with automation. Specially it doesn't solve the following:

- It doesn't get rid of existing entitlement programs.

- It doesn't solve automation issues for the developing world which can't afford to pay its citizens and will be hit especially hit hard by automation.

- It doesn't solve automation issues for the developed world since people derive meaning and self-worth from work (there's a difference between working and supporting yourself and being supported by government handouts). To reinforce this point: communities that are supported by government welfare programs tend to have issues with drug and alcohol abuse and crime. Furthermore, the social welfare programs in the developed world are already extensive enough that healthcare, food, and shelter will always be available regardless of the state of automation.

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

#212

Post by Aunche »

RegnisGnaw wrote: post #2

My issue, and I only have one, with these pilot projects for basic income is that its not realistic. The people in the project know that it will end at a fixed time, so their actions are different compared to what would happen in a BI/UBI system.

It was prematurely cancelled too. If the program risks being shut down at any time, of course people won't want to quit their jobs.

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

#213

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ctdonath wrote: post #207
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simpler solution is to just impose a tax of a given rate and pay out all the money it generates as a UBI. As economic productivity increases over time, more revenue is generated and we can pay out a bigger UBI, which satisfies the intuition that minimum standard of living should increase as overall productivity improves. If that amount is below some standard of living we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies then we…

The problem is UBI simply becomes the new $0 per supply-and-demand. If you didn't have to work for $UBI, and everybody has $UBI it has no value. Yes, the math is more complicated than that; upshot is a limited supply of essentials will be priced to take into account that EVERYBODY has $UBI. If I'm poor, limited housing means rent goes to $rent+UBI. If I'm sufficiently above poor, $UBI goes to $0 because I paid for $U…

That would only be true in a world where supply of necessities is immutable. In practice when there is more demand for stuff we can generally make more stuff. It is possible to build additional housing rather than forcing everyone into a zero-sum auction over the existing supply.

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

#214

Post by ativzzz »

vslira wrote: post #158
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…

> 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

"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."

Or adapting to productivity gains, the productivity required is increasing to meet the needs of increasingly productive people.

So taking into account human nature might mean that productivity gains enable us to do more advanced work, not to work less. But like you said, we're all just speculating.

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

#215

Post by jonnycomputer »

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…

Sounds like UBI gave them the negotiating power to decline jobs that did not meet their needs, were too exploitive, were not in alignment with their goals, and so on. That's part of the point: to increase labor power.

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

#216

Post by sabarn01 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #170

From my personal point of view, basic income SHOULD disincentivise work; it's a boost for society, health, well-being, children, etc. Because in the current economy, a lot of people have to work unreasonable hours, multiple jobs, and have all people in a family work to make ends meet, at the cost of personal health and well-being, personal time, having children at all or having more children, getting married and buyi…

People should fear being destitute its the natural human condition. Learning skills is the only way to make wealth.

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

#217

Post by harumph »

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?

This might be news to you, but there are huge swaths of people on this planet with no CV, no career, and are just scraping by, for whom 3 years of money would be a literal gift from the gods.

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

#218

Post by danenania »

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…

"If you consider multi-generational entrenchments of poverty as its own problem, worth serious merit, then the work disincentive could be a disaster."

Multi-generational entrenchments of poverty are already a disaster, and not because of fuzzy ideas like "instilling a work ethic", but because many millions of people lack the basic material resources needed to fulfill anything close to their potential.

A kid watching their parents break their backs as minimum-wage slaves living paycheck to paycheck doesn't prepare them to do anything other than the same thing with their lives.

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

#219

Post by PragmaticPulp »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #191
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…

> The more people who opt out of working, the harder everyone else must work to compensate. For which the market should correct by increasing their compensation, thus incentivising people to return to working, no?

> For which the market should correct by increasing their compensation, thus incentivising people to return to working, no?

Partially, but some of those increased compensation costs will translate to increased prices for everyone. That reduces the real value of a fixed UBI amount.

It's a given that a significant amount of UBI will be absorbed by inflation, particularly in housing prices in competitive cities. If everyone in a city is already competing for a limited housing supply and suddenly everyone has an extra $1000 per month, I wouldn't be surprised if the cheapest housing costs suddenly increased by nearly $1000 per month.

Post reply on HN