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

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

#531

Post by sailfast » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 7:41 PM UTC

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…

Why is a reduction in labor supply bad at present for low / unskilled labor? We're moving in that direction anyway using automation and software anyway, correct?

Also I see no mention at all of frictional unemployment as part of Mr. Stucchio's conclusions and if I suddenly had the ability to look for new jobs I would certainly take advantage.

The 10% number is created because people would now have actual OPTIONS, which is exactly what you want to create with this program. It's one of the goals. I don't see the disincentive being an issue except that it might increase wages in a tight economy which, is an actual thing people also want to do with these kinds of programs.

As for the personal opinion: obviously you're entitled to it, however I'd recommend a deeper look. Are you drawing this conclusion from personal experience? Do you know people whose parents never worked and are you really saying they're at a disadvantage because their family never worked, or is the real cause of the disadvantage of the "entrenchments of poverty" the lack of money?

The issue seems to be less "look at this poor role model - they never worked, so neither will their kids" but rather "we didn't have any money to actually consider a life that would allow me to focus on the things that make one successful, but rather food was difficult, and we were one broken arm away from bankruptcy". There seems to be a bias in your opinion. Please go speak with or listen to some actual human stories. I don't know anyone who would be less likely to be successful as a result of UBI. (Nor am I sold that it's a magic bullet either - it would be very costly)

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

#532

Post by munk-a » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

Proziam wrote: post #528

munk-a wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, congrats, but if you retired comfortably in your 20s you got crazy lucky - that kind of rapid wealth acquisition isn't skill based. I used to work in the game industry getting peanuts for the same hours, we made amazing things in crunch that I am proud of, but when we started to scale back hours our product got even better because we lowered the stress and increased the healthiness of our workplace.

If you could have worked twice as many hours and made twice as much money - would you? That was the position I found myself in, and that's how I got where I am. I never claimed to have a secret skill.

1. It would have been physically impossible for me to do so since I was already working 10-12 hour days pretty often and without sleep I'd be worthless.

2. Double income isn't necessarily that much income, if you're making 35k giving up sleeping to get 70k seems like a pretty poor trade.

Also, no, never. I would never work twice as many hours (assuming we're taking a base number of hours between 6 and 8) for twice the pay. You effectively earn less money (due to graduated taxes) and you have to give up all the creature comforts of life. Going from working 8 hours a day to 16 hours a day would drastically lower the enjoyment I got from life and probably end up killing me from stress.

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

#533

Post by rapind » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

chillacy wrote: post #453

rapind wrote: post #230

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…

The Harvard economist Greg Mankiew has a talk where he shows how a UBI + flat tax could behave the same as a progressive tax + phased out UBI: https://taxfoundation.org/universal-basic-income-ubi-means-t...

Seems like it would be more clear and fair all around to have flat tax + UBI so we aren't mixing solutions to different problems.

Rich and poor probably utilize public services around the same amount (roads, police, hospitals, fire departments, etc.). (I'm sure there are counter arguments to this, but if public services we're good enough, can we assume this?). So a flat tax would be fair. It potentially disincentives better public services in more wealthy regions if everyone pays the same (again, sure there are some counter arguments, but it would be better right?).

Then adding UBI is clearly for the purpose of distributing some of the wealth that our society has allowed to be created back to the people in a non-prejudiced way. UBI would have to keep pace with inflation of course. A fixed "thank you for making our rich country work and for buying crap even if don't need it" that everyone gets doesn't seem too controversial.

Other than accountants, tax lawyers, and offshore havens, who gets hurt?

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

#534

Post by ta5840 » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 7:44 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #455

Proziam wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdote incoming. I work double full time and have done so for approaching a decade. It's definitely proven to be a significant competitive advantage in my case. I don't know too many folks who could have comfortably retired in their 20s (that didn't grow up with generational wealth). Still, I've seen many folks in esports do crazy workloads and get nowhere fast. So there's more to the formula than just pouring in m…

I mean, congrats, but if you retired comfortably in your 20s you got crazy lucky - that kind of rapid wealth acquisition isn't skill based. I used to work in the game industry getting peanuts for the same hours, we made amazing things in crunch that I am proud of, but when we started to scale back hours our product got even better because we lowered the stress and increased the healthiness of our workplace.

> that kind of rapid wealth acquisition isn't skill based.

This is just nonsense and reflects a desire to dismiss the capabilities and accomplishments of others because they don't reflect your self-pitying worldview.

Chances are that the above poster did something you're unable or unwilling to do -- and the difference in outcomes is reflective of that.

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

#535

Post by dang » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 7:44 PM UTC

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.

This subthread was originally a child of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22494497.

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

#536

Post by coffeecat » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

adwn wrote: post #491

coffeecat wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give people money, and most of it will get spent. That spending is income for someone, and that income is taxed. I don't understand this argument.

> Give people money, and most of it will get spent. That spending is income for someone, and that income is taxed. I don't understand this argument. You can't eat money, nor can money cut your hair. refurb's point is that a UBI leads to a decrease in wealth, not in the amount of money in existence.

It will lead to a new equilibrium for sure. Whether that equilibrium is more wealth than currently exists (due to the additional buying power in consumers' hands) or less wealth (due to increasing cost of labor), I don't claim to know. But in the latter case, this decrease in total wealth would be a result of a collective decision that we value our time more than unnecessary material shit. A leaner workforce would have the incentive of higher wages. So in either case (an increase or decrease in total wealth), I'd argue that we're better off for it.

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

#537

Post by hinkley » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #190

auiya wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be willing to bet in most workplaces, about 20% of the workforce is dead weight - especially those in the management chain.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that 20% of work time is spent on social media or other personal matters across all office workers.

I think I've witnessed that fraction go up when raises and promotions fail to meet expectations.

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

#538

Post by Mirioron » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 7:47 PM UTC

fma wrote: post #519

refurb wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but work (productivity) is how you actually pay for UBI. So by giving UBI, you are decreasing the resources that pay for it.

One of Andrew Yang's proposal was to pay for a UBI with a 10% VAT, especially on services gained from automation, AI etc. Things that give companies a productivity boost, while also avoid taxes. So this would be a way to get the money back. For example - currently a trucker driver will pay state tax, federal tax, pay taxes on the things they eat/buy. When a self driving truck comes...all of that above won't occur any…

>Things that give companies a productivity boost, while also avoid taxes.

Shovels, cars, tractors, computers, pens, paper etc? A truck driver can do the job of many cart drivers! And a cart driver can do the job of people who carry things with their own body.

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

#539

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 7:47 PM UTC

jpttsn wrote: post #472

multiplegeorges wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is a very misleading summary of the results. Here are some actual quote from the study: > Ten respondents moved from unemployment to employment while 32 moved from employment to unemployment. Of the participants who moved from employment to unemployment, 13 (40.6%) enrolled in full-time education during the pilot with the intention of re-entering the labour market later as more qualified workers. Almost half…

Sounds like the participants knew the study was temporary and invested the money in a job they knew they’d need after the study.

[deleted]

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

#540

Post by munk-a » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

spullara wrote: post #522

munk-a wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada has a tax rate that tops out at 50% (mostly), the US caps out at 37%[1]. I think we'd all be better off if the tax brackets went a lot higher. Rich folks tend to have a lot of inactive money that's just sitting around doing nothing - we can put it to more productive uses. 1. Please note, these numbers are off of raw income tax - both Canada and the US have other employment related taxes that I'm not counting h…

You aren't including state taxes.

I am for the Canadian ones - where I can easily count the provinces. I am indeed too lazy to do the math on how much each of the fifty states leverage in taxes but it looks like they tend to come out well below 50% (except for CA, which is fair). Specifically, CT caps out at 43%, NY is at 45%, CA is at 49% and TX is 37% - since there are 0% state income states I find it reasonable to assume that rich people concerned with income taxes will chose to live in one of those 0% income tax states.