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

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

#301

Post by jbeales » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:09 PM UTC

daemonk wrote: post #144

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…

What are the demographics of those that dropped out of the work force? Didn't some UBI studies observe that while there are people that dropped out of the workforce, these people consisted of mothers that can now go back to child rearing or younger people that can now pursue an education?

Not really demographics, but from the article:

> while some people did stop working, about half of them headed back to school in hopes of coming back to a better job.

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

#302

Post by klyrs » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #175

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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% in…

> 10% minimum wage increase induces 1%-2% increase in the United States

This shows that absolute rent is going up. Relative rent, the proportion of income going to rent, is going down. This frees up folks' money for other things and improves living conditions.

> Now imagine a 10% raise for every earner.

If everybody made the same exact amount, that would be relevant. With a $25k UBI, you'd see folks who previously earned $50k getting a 50% raise and those making $500k getting a 5% raise. Right now, people in poverty are often spending 40-60% of their income on rent. Not so of people making $500k.

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

#303

Post by 52-6F-62 » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

There is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread, and a lot of strong opinions.

"UBI" is mentioned repeatedly, but this wasn't a UBI program.

The intention of the program was looking to replace our existing welfare and many Ontario works programs.

Instead, the incoming government (after campaigning on completing the pilot) canceled the program unilaterally, and is looking to outsource our welfare payment programs to foreign companies.

Please read a summary on the program:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Basic_Income_Pilot_Pro...

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

#304

Post by Aunche » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:10 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…

> millions of people lack the basic material resources needed to fulfill anything close to their potential

There is a limited amount of capital in the world. Distributing it now might help those at home, but it does not help the billion people who still lack electricity. There simply is not enough capital in the world to build trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure for free. Investment is a much better vehicle for distribution than UBI as it also creates wealth.

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

#305

Post by c22 » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:11 PM UTC

bena wrote: post #241

luckylion wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I don't know who we can force to do the work for us, but if my toilet's backing up, the garbage is overflowing, and my back yard is filled with rotting fruit I guess I'd do those jobs.

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

#306

Post by gwd » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:11 PM UTC

dqpb wrote: post #269

crystaln wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the reason for ubi is that a lot of work is exploitative or underpaid. Ubi puts people in a negotiating position to not work and demand higher payment, or to not work and contribute to society in other ways.

Or to not work and not contribute to society. I’m not opposed to ubi per se, but your enumeration was incomplete.

So is yours actually: You have people who work but whose work doesn't contribute to society (or at least, makes the world a worse place).

But most of those wouldn't be affected that much by UBI, I don't think.

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

#307

Post by nennes » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

isoskeles wrote: post #299

nennes wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because you're using data that doesn't control for occupation, hours worked, etc.

So as a gender, women choose lower paid jobs and work less? If this is true and it is a choice, that would mean that women as a gender are either lazy or less qualified. If this is not true then it is evidence of inequality in the selection of employees. I don't see either of the above making your point.

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

#308

Post by bontaq » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

pingyong wrote: post #95

I really, really like the idea of UBI. However, some napkin math: In the US, with ~250 million people being eligible, a $1000 UBI would cost ~$3 trillion. That's almost the entire budget of the US. How is this even remotely realistic right now? Even if you can cut other spending in half due to it, you'd need an additional $1.5 trillion in "income" essentially. Is that something that would even be possible? How many r…

We could let the government build factories, mines, and services. Then profits could be directed towards the program. The government services could also have a mandate for automation and job-destruction, in order to maximize the effectiveness of the people's capital.

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

#309

Post by nicholassmith » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #300

nicholassmith wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone that grew up in an area where there are many families that have at least two generations of non-working family units I'm actually thrilled by UBI. It won't encourage that any more than the current social welfare system does, even if those numbers increase slightly the rest of the benefits to the rest of the population are still worth it. Not doing things because some of the population take the piss is not…

> It won't encourage that any more than the current social welfare system does Citation needed

Smack a large "in my opinion" on there. I don't think anyone has done the statistical modelling for it yet.

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

#310

Post by Ericson2314 » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

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…

Yes! If you all aren't destitute and your parents never worked, your family has time to accrue lots of social capital, which incidentally is extremely economically valuable in this weird age.