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

251–260 of 809 posts

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

#251

Post by avanderveen »

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

Why? I feel like a lot of people want to do things that are productive for society, that we have too little of right now. Things like producing art of all forms, building things, increasing their level of communication with those around them, participating in community events and activities, etc. Sure, these things aren't economically productive, but they're still productive for society, which is the gap that I'd like to see filled, whether by UBI or other forms of providing more security for the general population.

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

#252

Post by jonathankoren »

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…

> 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.

Workers are more productive now than they ever have been.[0] Productivity was up 253% since 1948 seven years ago. For decades they’ve been promising us the 20 hour work week, and it’s here. In fact it’s only 15 hours comparatively.

The point is: you don’t need everyone to work full time everyday for a society to maintain a healthy standard of living.

[0] https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/07/news/economy/compensation-p...

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

#253

Post by [deleted] »

BurningFrog wrote: post #113
dx87 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there isn't much work if you live there. If you had UBI though, that wouldn't matter, so you could just live in a rural area for cheap.

This of course directly contradicts the claim that people will keep working with UBI.

[deleted]

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

#254

Post by ctdonath »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #213
ctdonath wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hence "Yes, the math is more complicated than that". The practical tweet-sized outcome is about the same though.

The other thing missed by UBI advocates: money is merely a representation of value, it is not value itself. Someone living on $UBI (and I expect a great many would) has all their basic needs met without their effort ... except that those basic needs are not provided without effort. This badly distorts supply-and-demand. $1 costing a UBI recipient nothing, prices rise by $1 - knowing that the $1 cost nothing to obtain; to wit "easy come, easy go".

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

#255

Post by loa_in_ »

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.

But lack of personnel to do jobs would bump the wages due to demand and that would quickly find people ready to fill them in

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

#256

Post by karatestomp »

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…

> 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.

Unrelatedly, I have also proven beyond a doubt that Ray Charles is God.

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

#257

Post by cvlasdkv »

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…

> The end does not justify the means. Forcibly removing someone's money and transferring it to another person can never be justified.

I agree. For that reason we should redistribute wealth from lazy rent-seeking shareholders and landlords. Billionaires and shareholders are legalized slave owners and should be treated as such.

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

#259

Post by captainredbeard »

hooande wrote: post #239
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.

No person who was born rich has to learn skills to avoid destitution. And poverty isn't the natural condition for humans any more than it is for cats, or any other animal.

Not true.

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

#260

Post by koonsolo »

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…

One other thing to add to it: The community in the experiment were not self sustained. What I mean is that extra money was pumped into this experiment.

In real life the money needs to come from that same community, which boils down to increased taxes on labor. I would love to see the statistics on work incentive when your taxes double on that same work.

Post reply on HN