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

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

#221

Post by CivBase » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

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?

Which drives up the cost of goods, resulting in an inflation that counteracts the UBI and gets us right back where we started.

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

#222

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #128

whatshisface wrote: post #80

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. Lower unemployment would be associated with a greater availability of goods and services, so that would get it out of the trap. Higher wages would also be associated with a supply increase if they came with increased productivity, but if you raised the minimum wage then prices of low-end product…

> Lower unemployment would be associated with a greater availability of goods and services, so that would get it out of the trap. That's assuming the goods and services are locally consumed, which in a global economy they're commonly not. A jet engine factory that moves in and hires a bunch of people reduces local unemployment, but that doesn't mean any of the local workers are in the market for jet engines. > Higher…

[deleted]

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

#223

Post by ativzzz » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:40 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…

> non-productive for society

Assuming if you made more money, you would then spend that money, there would be someone who would create opportunities for people like you to spend your money. And that just sounds like business to me.

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

#224

Post by dwaltrip » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

rmah wrote: post #161

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.

To use different phrasing, what you're saying is that you want people to be poorer. Please understand that I don't mean this as a personal attack on you, your beliefs or philosophy. But from a different perspective, that really is what you're saying. Do you really want to say that? Perhaps a better alternative is: a good goal would be to allow people to have more while using less natural resources and polluting the e…

You are using very charged and slanted language.

Likely, their lives will be greatly enriched by an extra day off of work per week.

Bank accounts, the GDP, and other similar metrics fail to capture enormous amounts of value and meaning in our lives. Even the progress of scientific understanding is poorly measured in this way.

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

#225

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #182

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…

Those less restrictive areas are not always where people want to live. The people advocating for UBI are often not the same people that are OK with poor people being priced out of an area and moving into lower-cost areas. I think it's more likely we'll see UBI proponents want to factor in a cost of living adjustment based on the place one lives, which will be a nightmare of political administration and unintended con…

> Those less restrictive areas are not always where people want to live.

Then remove the restrictions in the places people do want to live.

> I think it's more likely we'll see UBI proponents want to factor in a cost of living adjustment based on the place one lives, which will be a nightmare of political administration and unintended consequences.

Terrible idea, do not want.

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

#226

Post by diffeomorphism » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:40 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 more people who opt out of working, the harder everyone else must work to compensate.

Historical counterpoint: Shorter hours like 40/week were introduced to increase productivity.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

So it may very well be that the exact opposite of what you think is true and that you currently have to compensate for people working badly with long hours.

> In fact, giving people free income might increase the demands for goods and services as those people would have extra disposable income.

Thus far UBI tended to be about the same amount of income just from different sources.

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

#227

Post by ethanbond » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

bo1024 wrote: post #199

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?

I don't follow that. HQ2 was about creation of new jobs and immigration of more people into the area. For a fixed supply, higher rents are caused by a larger number of people demanding housing at the current prices. Higher wages only affect that by (a) causing immigration into the area, or (b) raising people out of poverty so that they can afford housing when they couldn't before.

Hypothetical landlord: “All my tenants are now earning an additional $1k per month and nothing prevents me from raising prices. But I won’t raise rents because... reasons.”

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

#228

Post by pietrovismara » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

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.

It might very well be that they quit low pay jobs they took only because they had no alternative. It's obvious that the job market would need to adjust with an UBI in place. Most wage-slavery level jobs would have no justification to exist anymore.

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

#229

Post by nennes » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

sabarn01 wrote: post #216

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.

That's a common argument to justify inequality. If learning is the key, then why is there such a huge income disparity between men and women? Are women lazy and don't learn?

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

#230

Post by rapind » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

If you raise the bar by $x across the board then doesn't $x gradually becomes the new bottom? If we give everyone $50k / year tax-free, would that just make $50k the new $0 relative to cost of living? The effect being the same as a progressive tax (those who make far more are far less impacted).

If it is basically the same as a progressive tax, then it does strike me as a much simpler way to implement it (instead of complicated varying brackets). However adding it on top of an existing progressive tax scheme is adding another point of complexity right?

Maybe replacing progressive taxes with a flat tax and then adding UBI would be a better / simpler approach.