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

721–730 of 809 posts

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

#721

Post by Thorentis »

thereare5lights wrote: post #719
Thorentis wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't misrepresent anything. If I was enrolled in a study where I was given free money, I'd stop working and pursue study or other interests too. Seems like these people knew the study was temporary, and took advantage of it. A permanent basic income would produce results no study is capable of measuring.

Wrong. Parent said > 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 market when it…

Wrong.

Parent was correct in quoting the study. 17% were unemployed. What were they doing instead? Studying, or not working (with a small minority on sick leave).

From this we can conclude that: UBI encourages people to leave the workforce, or this study encouraged people to leave the workforce. Studying is still a productivity activity in the right context, but you cannot pretend it is the same as being employed from the perspective of analysing the economic impacts of UBI.

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

#722

Post by thereare5lights »

Thorentis wrote: post #721
thereare5lights wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. Parent said > 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 market when it…

Wrong. Parent was correct in quoting the study. 17% were unemployed. What were they doing instead? Studying, or not working (with a small minority on sick leave). From this we can conclude that: UBI encourages people to leave the workforce, or this study encouraged people to leave the workforce. Studying is still a productivity activity in the right context, but you cannot pretend it is the same as being employed fro…

Wrong again.

Parent framed their argument as

> All studies so far show a pretty consistent ~10% work disincentive. This is what all the detractors say when they say it disincentivizes work.

When the parent invokes the detractors, it brings up the arguments that all the detractors use, saying that UBI will turn people into lazy freeloaders that do not want to work. That it will lead to people just living off the government and contributing nothing. Going back to get an education for the purpose of work does not fall under that category.

The thesis of the parent is not that they're simply leaving the workforce. They're quoting the same old claims that UBI will make people lazy and not want to work. That frame is why quoting the study as a means to further that claim is so misleading.

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

#723

Post by [deleted] »

tic_tac wrote: post #709
r-w wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> […] its value as a signaling mechanism, which is where the majority of modern education's value lies in the first place. I’m not sure education is a very high-resolution or effective signal for much, and I think its dilution as a signal would help force us to find a better one. I’m curious though, given how self-assured you seem: what do you think education signals right now?

Education signals that you are "better" than those with worse education. Smarter, harder working, etc. We need to create better options for students. We can do this by refocusing education on learning practical skills for real world jobs rather than maintaining an educational system built upon a foundation over 1000 years old that up until 100 or so years ago was intended for the elites and scholars, not the average…

[deleted]

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

#724

Post by nojvek »

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’s SSI and SSDI ?

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

#726

Post by Thorentis »

thereare5lights wrote: post #722
Thorentis wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. Parent was correct in quoting the study. 17% were unemployed. What were they doing instead? Studying, or not working (with a small minority on sick leave). From this we can conclude that: UBI encourages people to leave the workforce, or this study encouraged people to leave the workforce. Studying is still a productivity activity in the right context, but you cannot pretend it is the same as being employed fro…

Wrong again. Parent framed their argument as > All studies so far show a pretty consistent ~10% work disincentive. This is what all the detractors say when they say it disincentivizes work. When the parent invokes the detractors, it brings up the arguments that all the detractors use, saying that UBI will turn people into lazy freeloaders that do not want to work. That it will lead to people just living off the gover…

Wrong again.

You assumed a lot about the parent comment's interpretation. "Disincentivizing work" can be interpreted to mean more likely to study than work. This doesn't mean lazy. Nothing in the parent comment called people lazy for leaving the workforce, just that it disincetivized participating in the workforce.

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

#727

Post by rapind »

zazaalaza wrote: post #636
learnstats2 wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

"UBI is a political decision which is renewed with every government" If this is true than implementing UBI will be more problematic than I thought. All UBI proposals so far call for all other financial safety nets to be removed in order to finance UBI. Managing that will be a nightmare if you can just cut off UBI, then you have to spin up everything else again. I imagine UBI to be something similar to how the pension…

How do you manage to get elected if you're going to take $12k / year away from everyone? Good luck with that.

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

#728

Post by thereare5lights »

Thorentis wrote: post #726
thereare5lights wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong again. Parent framed their argument as > All studies so far show a pretty consistent ~10% work disincentive. This is what all the detractors say when they say it disincentivizes work. When the parent invokes the detractors, it brings up the arguments that all the detractors use, saying that UBI will turn people into lazy freeloaders that do not want to work. That it will lead to people just living off the gover…

Wrong again. You assumed a lot about the parent comment's interpretation. "Disincentivizing work" can be interpreted to mean more likely to study than work. This doesn't mean lazy. Nothing in the parent comment called people lazy for leaving the workforce, just that it disincetivized participating in the workforce.

Wrong wrong wrong.

> You assumed a lot about the parent comment's interpretation. "

No I did not. That the THE primary argument detractors make when they say that UBI disincentivizes work. Read enough on the arguments against UBI and you will realize that for yourself.

Your interpretation indicates that you have not been steeped in debates about UBI, otherwise you would know this already.

Interpreting the parent's remarks, ESPECIALLY when they bring up the existing "detractors" as simply meaning "not working", instead of what is the primary argument the existing detractors make is absolutely disingenuous.

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

#729

Post by JDiculous »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #635
bavell wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, part of the allure of UBI to me is that it is a social safety net except it benefits everyone. Because it's universal and not means-tested, it removes the stigma of being 'on welfare' which IMO is incredibly discouraging and makes it harder to rise out of your unfortunate situation. So yes, I would love if UBI replaced some programs while augments others. At the end of the day it's the most direct and effecti…

> At the end of the day it's the most direct and effective way of combating poverty and goes a long way towards closing the wealth gap. Where do you think all this Income is going to come from? The middle class will shoulder the bulk of it which will widen the wealth gap. You will end up with 1k in UBI and 1500 in taxes to pay for it.

> The middle class will shoulder the bulk of it

Why is that the assumption?

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

#730

Post by whiddershins »

crispyambulance wrote: post #575
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 a success to me. I like the concept too, but we have to be careful what we wish for. If, somehow, UBI becomes real there will be a huge push from the libertarians and far-right to dismantle whatever is left of the social safety net. They actually would love the idea of replacing medicare, social security and other programs with a quick 1000/month that would enable even more shrinking of government.

You are writing as if shrinking the government is a priori bad.

Is that your stance?

Your stance is coming across like “more government is intrinsically better”

Is that what you are hoping I take from reading what you wrote?

Post reply on HN