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

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

#621

Post by datashow » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 9:55 PM UTC

EthanHeilman wrote: post #562

zazaalaza wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. With a permanent UBI in place you can throw all these studies out the window.

You can argue that the only way to perform a completely accurate UBI experiment would be to run it for at least 60-80 years for everyone. Social experiments are very hard to do and have many flaws, but it seems unreasonable to say that the information gained by doing such studies should be "thrown out the window".

This issue is not a "flaw". It's a root problem. We want to know the effect of permanent UBI, not of a temporary one, and we know (strongly suspect) the effect will be different.

Maybe the simple solution is that the researchers establish a dedicated million dollar bank account for a participant and automatically withdraw $1000 for the participant every month.

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

#622

Post by purerandomness » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 9:55 PM UTC

tic_tac wrote: post #603

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…

The point of UBI is not to fund people's vanity adventures in education. It's to support people who would otherwise be starving or homeless without a job. Regarding "sickness", the severity is important to know. If UBI enables people with slight depression issues to just give up working entirely, UBI could be entirely counterproductive by accelerating depression's spirals of inactivity. And this completely ignored th…

> The point of UBI is not to fund people's vanity adventures in education

What a twisted way to phrase "train for their next career step, which will make them earn more money, so the state gets more tax money than before"

But for you, it's always "vanity adventures" when it's other people's education, right?

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

#623

Post by Loughla » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

hitpointdrew wrote: post #618

tic_tac wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of UBI is not to fund people's vanity adventures in education. It's to support people who would otherwise be starving or homeless without a job. Regarding "sickness", the severity is important to know. If UBI enables people with slight depression issues to just give up working entirely, UBI could be entirely counterproductive by accelerating depression's spirals of inactivity. And this completely ignored th…

> The point of UBI is not to fund people's vanity adventures in education. That is YOUR OPINION of what UBI should be. It happens to be wrong. What people do with the money isn't the point of UBI at all. The point is to improve their lives, and boost the economy. Who cares what specific the money is spent on if it is making people healthier, less stressed, and happier?

>Who cares what specific the money is spent on if it is making people healthier, less stressed, and happier?

And here, in one sentence, is why we will NEVER see UBI in the United States of America. There is no ability to be the moral whip and maintain control over someone else's choices to make sure they don't 'waste my money'. Therefore, it will never happen.

In the US, at least, it's not about doing what's right. It's not about making sure people are healthier, less stressed, and happier. It's about making sure they live the 'best' life they can, as defined by groups like the "moral majority".

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

#624

Post by edmundsauto » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #572

ilammy wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's better to increase capital than redistribute it. Consider the notion of leverage where both A and B can increase their capital more in absolute value if some part of A's significant capital is redistributed to poorer B. UBI just takes risk out of this equation so A does not have to lend to B in order for this to happen. Though yeah, this makes A poorer in absolute value than they would have been without this s…

> UBI just takes risk out of this equation so A does not have to lend to B in order for this to happen. For society, the risk is that A is more efficient at investing money than a blind redistribution scheme. That's a multi-trillion dollar gamble.

Isn't it a case of investment efficiency versus efficacy? If all you care about is capital increasing capital, then efficiency is a good measure. If you care about how the increase in capital impacts peoples lives, then giving $1 to a billionaire is less effective than someone on minimum wage.

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

#625

Post by dwaltrip » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 10:01 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #368

dwaltrip wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe. What will you do with that free time? Most people will give an answer that depends on having toys they can no longer afford.

I don't think that is true. Here a few things people might do:

* Spend valuable time with a young child

* Relax at the park

* Spend time with family and friends

* Take care of household chores or administrative life tasks that one has been procrastinating on

* Go hiking

* Read a book

* Watch a show or movie

* Learn a new skill or start a new hobby

* Build a website or start a blog that isn't profitable but adds value to the world

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

#626

Post by syrrim » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

winstonewert wrote: post #91

I don't think this fits the definition of basic income. > Whatever income participants earned was deducted from their basic income at 50 per cent That is equivalent to a massive 50% tax rate on every dollar earned. It seems to me the whole point of UBI is that its universal and not conditional on how much you earn otherwise.

How do you expect UBI to be funded? Either taxes or wars, and we haven't invested very much in our army.

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

#627

Post by BlackCherry » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #157

ctdonath wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is the lack of colloquial objective definition of "poor". The US "poverty line" is at 80th percentile of world incomes. The US's vast welfare/entitlement system ensures few indeed net less than that line, shoring up their shortfall with trillions of $. What constitutes "poor" keeps shifting. There will always be a bottom 10%. There is ongoing increase to the standard of living, instilling a sense of "nobody s…

> As it stands, "poor" is a moving target for which a great number of people have a vested interest in covering a consistent, if not growing, population. Nearly all Kings and Emperors were 'poorer' than most Westerners under the poverty line of today. They had no refrigeration, antibiotics, electricity, etc. But we still agree that there are 'poor' people today, and I think we're correct to say so. Yes, it is a movin…

I find this trope of Kings/Emperors being "poorer" than most people today, to be an extremely annoying trope. This trope is purely a rhetorical device used to justify inequalities, because "look you have a cell phone and infinite McDonald's deliveries on Seamless, you're richer than a King of old!" Meanwhile you're shackled to your job, shackled to your location, shackled to your apartment/mortgage, shackled to your debt, etc.

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

#628

Post by nostrebored » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

datashow wrote: post #621

EthanHeilman wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can argue that the only way to perform a completely accurate UBI experiment would be to run it for at least 60-80 years for everyone. Social experiments are very hard to do and have many flaws, but it seems unreasonable to say that the information gained by doing such studies should be "thrown out the window".

This issue is not a "flaw". It's a root problem. We want to know the effect of permanent UBI, not of a temporary one, and we know (strongly suspect) the effect will be different. Maybe the simple solution is that the researchers establish a dedicated million dollar bank account for a participant and automatically withdraw $1000 for the participant every month.

Still completely irrelevant as the U in UBI comes with a lot of externalities

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

#629

Post by BlackCherry » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #368

dwaltrip wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe. What will you do with that free time? Most people will give an answer that depends on having toys they can no longer afford.

I think you're confusing consumerist propaganda we are bombarded with in media designed to literally get us to purchase stuff from the ads they are displaying with real life people.

Real life people on average desire more quality time with their communities/families and to make themselves a "better person" through hobbies, learning, exercise, sports.

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

#630

Post by learnstats2 » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

datashow wrote: post #621

EthanHeilman wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can argue that the only way to perform a completely accurate UBI experiment would be to run it for at least 60-80 years for everyone. Social experiments are very hard to do and have many flaws, but it seems unreasonable to say that the information gained by doing such studies should be "thrown out the window".

This issue is not a "flaw". It's a root problem. We want to know the effect of permanent UBI, not of a temporary one, and we know (strongly suspect) the effect will be different. Maybe the simple solution is that the researchers establish a dedicated million dollar bank account for a participant and automatically withdraw $1000 for the participant every month.

But there is no such thing as "permanent UBI", though.

UBI is a political decision which is renewed with every government.

The perspective of the participants makes sense. Whether they believe their access to UBI will continue or not, it makes sense to up-skill.

Besides, we do know how people behave when they are born with a million dollar bank account, and it's relatively very rare that they are criticised for how they choose to live.