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

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

#801

Post by stevenwoo » Sat, Mar 07, 2020, 10:44 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #479

ssully wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your posts on the Permanent Fund here. I have a friend who moved to Alaska last year for work last year and will probably be there for a few more years. We had discussions about the fund recently because this is the first year he qualifies for it. He will very much be in that camp of using the check in the fall to splurge and will do so until he is able to move in a few years. As an outsider, it seems fr…

I feel vaguely similar, having moved to Texas a year ago. No income tax, also money needed for services, when I point this out people just kinda go "oh you crazy new york folks."

The property tax burden (if you own) is fairly high, especially if one is not getting a high tech salary. The sort of permanent fund equivalent in Texas is dedicated to the state university system - they make a pretty big deal of this in civics classes in Texas.

Also, there is a delayed reckoning in the public school system in Texas - they keep on cutting state funding to systems to avoid having to increase state taxes so local school systems have to try to make this up, and the state for a long time fraudulently worked to deny children with special education needs the correct diagnosis - since special education (for whatever reason/cause) children cost a lot more to educate. https://www.chron.com/politics/texas/article/Delayed-or-deni...

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

#802

Post by megous » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 7:42 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #407

megous wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it would kill the businesses operating at the margin of profitability.

Why do business deserve a level of welfare we're not affording to human beings. Let's feed, house, cloth, educate and provide health care for everyone - then we can start looking at saving unprofitable business. The truth is, a lot of business ventures simply aren't profitable. It isn't profitable for me to start a business where I deliver whitecastle to remote areas by flying couriers there with the food - but it co…

I guess parent edited the comment. I don't remember responding to whatever is in that comment now. So you're responding out of context, too. Fun.

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

#803

Post by lliamander » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 6:31 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #760

lliamander wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yang's plan also involves one of the highest deficit spending proposals of any of the UBI plans listed on that calculator. It's all very well and good to say "look, virtually everyone would see a net income increase!" until you realize that's only possible by literally just printing money. The costs of such high deficit spending are pretty certain, but the benefits meant to offset those costs are only speculative (an…

You're right and this is the criticism I have of Yang, though I supported him. I'd rather have a higher VAT and other methods to gather revenue than through deficit spending. Especially since it is inflation tied and deficit spending leads to inflation. Though I'm also not an economist and lots of economists seem to like deficit spending. So I'm just going to say I'm naive here.

I appreciate your perspective. The problem of course is that a higher VAT would also reduce the effective purchasing power granted by the UBI.

I get that one of the benefits of UBI is that it's supposed to empower people to use the money in the way that satisfies their needs best, rather than rely on inefficient bureaucracies to determine what needs are worth subsidizing and who qualifies.

The problem is, there's no free lunch. It seems to me like any sensibly funded UBI is going to probably negatively impact many middle-class folks. Politically that's just a non-starter in the U.S.

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

#804

Post by timwaagh » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 10:31 AM UTC

Matumio wrote: post #354

timwaagh wrote: post #109

"nearly three-quarters of respondents who were working when the pilot project began kept at it despite receiving basic income." So can we infer that 25% of those working chose to actually quit full time? I think it's safe to say this much reduction in labor availability is not the result the government was hoping for. The state is right, maybe not to call it off prematurely but if these figures would have been the sa…

I really don't like using employment as the only valid measure of success. See also David Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs" essay. Government could always create jobs, directly or indirectly, and force the unemployed into them, producing something for which there isn't really a demand. Why were those people quitting their jobs? What were they doing instead? Were they better off? How much did it cost to get those improvements…

People quitting their jobs means a not-quite corresponding economic decline because labor productivity can't change in the short term (not quite because these are lower-productivity jobs). Which means less taxes and thus less money to fund programs like this. But more importantly in an import-free economy, less stuff gets produced so everyone would have to make do with less. That's why it's generally considered important.

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

#805

Post by account42 » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 10:33 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #605

entropicdrifter wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't he be more successful with UBI, then? He would likely overall save the corporations he's being employed on and off by money by reducing their turnover. Also, it's likely most low wage jobs would have their wages increase because there would be less fear of unionizing if striking meant that nobody would be going hungry. Thus, UBI can reduce the degree of low wage exploitation at both the worker's side (gettin…

> Wouldn't he be more successful with UBI, then? How would he be more successful by not working at all? > He would likely overall save the corporations he's being employed on and off by money by reducing their turnover. Businesses are used to high turnover with lower paid employees. It's ok, though, because their jobs tend to be interchangeable and easy for someone new to get up to speed on. > win-win The lose part i…

> The lose part is supporting people who would otherwise work and contribute to the economy.

Why do you think that having everyone contribute to the economy should be the goal? Are you absolutely certain that your acquaintance does not have a positive impact on those around him while he is not working?

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

#806

Post by zentiggr » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 12:21 PM UTC

r-w wrote: post #677

zentiggr wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a good incentive to start services to actually help protect those most vulnerable to scams - my own mother could have benefited from something similar as one of her caretakers bilked her out of a few thousand dollars toward the end of her life. A 'fool them once, shame on you... but it won't happen again!' policy would be a welcome thing.

> […] services to actually help protect those most vulnerable to scams Services? This sounds more like a legislative than a marketplace problem. Pardon if it’s forward to ask, but what service do you envision could have helped protect your mother?

For quite a while, she had a financial assistant and a home visit assistant, each of whom visited at least twice a week. Because of insurance changes, the financial assistant had to stop.

It was in the gap of finding this out and getting myself back in the loop that the home visitor managed to get checks cashed that she didn't know about.

The services are already in existence, just not consistently or as comprehensively as they could/need to be.

A legislative issue to stop nickel and diming social assistance, for sure. These kinds of services should be available for anyone who needs them, not just whatever narrowly defined criteria in current funding mandates.

We as the public just don't care enough.

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

#807

Post by godelski » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 6:25 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #803

godelski wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right and this is the criticism I have of Yang, though I supported him. I'd rather have a higher VAT and other methods to gather revenue than through deficit spending. Especially since it is inflation tied and deficit spending leads to inflation. Though I'm also not an economist and lots of economists seem to like deficit spending. So I'm just going to say I'm naive here.

I appreciate your perspective. The problem of course is that a higher VAT would also reduce the effective purchasing power granted by the UBI. I get that one of the benefits of UBI is that it's supposed to empower people to use the money in the way that satisfies their needs best, rather than rely on inefficient bureaucracies to determine what needs are worth subsidizing and who qualifies. The problem is, there's no…

While you're right in that a higher VAT __can__ reduce the effective purchasing power, it doesn't have to. 1) Yang's VAT was at 10% which is under half the rate of most of the European countries. So I'd feel confident that we could follow similar procedures, which would halve the deficit spending (if the carbon tax was doubled to $40/ton, there'd be a surplus). 2) VATs don't have to be applied uniformly. I'm also not opposed to a wealth tax. But from my understanding, it is harder to avoid a VAT. This is probably an easier loophole to close (and Republicans like consumption taxes, so easier to pass). But you are right in that things would need to be reformed dramatically to actually capture a wealth tax.

I still do not buy the argument that a UBI will be shouldered by the middle class. I have yet to see evidence that it will be shouldered by anyone but the 1% (really the 0.01%).

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

#808

Post by dqpb » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 10:03 PM UTC

gwd wrote: post #306

dqpb wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True!

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

#809

Post by thomasfedb » Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 11:46 AM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #240

thomasfedb wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of progressives who see UBI as a method of vastly simplifying social security by doing exactly this. One payment for all.

As an exercise, try and advocate for getting rid of Medicare for Seniors in return for increasing the pension payout rate (to whatever reasonable number of you choose). How do you think that will go ... and that's just one program. If you think you can get rid of food stamps and 10,000 other programs, you're dreaming.

Honestly I think public health is so well ingrained into the Australian psyche that it's not really considered to be welfare - it's just a state service like roads or parks. UBI in Australia wouldn't change our healthcare system.