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

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

#241

Post by bena » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:46 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #234

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…

> From my personal point of view, basic income SHOULD disincentivise work; it's a boost for society, health, well-being, children, etc. Somebody has to do the work though, until robots do everything (and then declare war on us), you need somebody to take away the garbage, pick the fruits and unclog the toilets. Disincentivizing work doesn't make that go away, it just means you'll put that load on fewer shoulders.

Thank you.

That's the part of automation that no one wants to discuss. What happens when we're like 90% automated and there simply isn't enough jobs for everyone.

Who do we force to work and is that ethical?

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

#242

Post by Cobord » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:46 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #87

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…

>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.

That is because it was proposed with cuts to everything else. That leaves people to fall through the cracks in the meantime. If you transition to UBI without those issues, progressives like the idea.

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

#243

Post by cambalache » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:47 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #219

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ever…

How so? The compensation is increased because less people are working, so the cost of labour is fixed (which is neglible in any case in a post-scarcity society as envisioned in the future)

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

#244

Post by baddox » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:47 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #184

baddox wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because humans need an objective minimum to survive. Below that they face slow death. There's a difference between social norm vs existential need, and many people have a vested interest in conflating the two. There has to be a baseline standard, amounting to triage, above which "your core needs are met, and you have a path to thrive on - up to you to do you now." Maybe there's another moving standard of minimum stan…

> Because humans need an objective minimum to survive.

I don’t even agree with this. Even for starvation there’s no clean dividing line. Malnutrition leads to reduced lifespans and health problems. I think that quality of life both can and should increase as society improves its technology and wealth.

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

#245

Post by karatestomp » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:47 PM UTC

_bxg1 wrote: post #27

Ididntdothis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are already complaining about taxes too high and lazy welfare recipients. With UBI this would get even worse and I agree that most likely it would get voted out very quickly. If we can’t even get universal health care, robust social safety net or secure retirement going without political fights, forget UBI.

The argument for UBI in place of those other things is that it's extremely simple. Legislatively, bureaucratically, etc. Just give people more money to offset all of these systems that are too expensive. Simpler also means cheaper to implement. It does avoid dealing with the root problems in some sense, but it's certainly elegant.

I'm tentatively a UBI fan, but just switching to single-payer healthcare would do a lot of that. So much damn bureaucracy, public and private, for that. I think the public side's under-accounted-for, actually—so many government agencies end up having to deal with health insurance crap for one reason or another.

Some would remain for private supplemental plans or whatever, but 90+% of that work would just go away. Plus all those uncompensated hours individuals spend fucking with insurance and medical provider billing departments.

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

#246

Post by toolz » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

nennes wrote: post #229

sabarn01 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What you're arguing for is equity, not equality. We already have equal opportunity. As for the gender wage gap, if women are so disadvantaged - exactly how do they make up 85% of consumer spending?

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

#247

Post by YinglingLight » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

danenania wrote: post #218

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…

You neglect any psychological effects of Scarcity Mentality, entitlement, and avoidance of responsibility for one's life situation. It is far less a resource problem than you would suggest.

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

#248

Post by macspoofing » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

Cobord wrote: post #242

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.

That is because it was proposed with cuts to everything else. That leaves people to fall through the cracks in the meantime. If you transition to UBI without those issues, progressives like the idea.

Right. But this is the unbridgeable gap between Libertarian-types, who see UBI as a way to cut entitlements and progressives who (at best) see it as a supplement to ALL existing programs. What's the compromise here?

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

#249

Post by luckylion » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

danenania wrote: post #218

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…

Multi-generational poverty is a thing in Western + Northern Europe as well, so it may be something other than the US model.

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

#250

Post by Seenso » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:49 PM UTC

exabrial wrote: post #133

The end does not justify the means. Forcibly removing someone's money and transferring it to another person can never be justified. Tax-funded UBI is theft, slavery, and extortion. However, if a billionaire wishes to privately sponsor UBI, this is a completely different story in charity and example that should be regarded. It's important to differentiate between the two, but unfortunately most UBI schemes refer to ex…

> Tax-funded UBI is theft, slavery, and extortion.

Our law creates both property rights and taxes. Taxes aren't theft because, by law, that money is actually the government's property. If you want individualistically overrule our law to make taxes theft, I might as well do the same to make your property mine.