Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available • Hacker News Board

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#121

Post by IncreasePosts » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 7:38 PM UTC

theLiminator wrote: post #47

superfrank wrote: post #14

I'm not sure how to address this, but I always wonder how much we can extrapolate the findings from these studies to a universal basic income situation. I feel like giving a small group of people an extra $12000 a year provides benefits for low income people because their yearly income is now higher compared to the median income. Someone who's income is in the 5th percentile may now be in the 10th or 15th percentile…

> I'm concerned about a situation similar to college tuition in the US where easy, risk free money leads to price gouging. Once everyone has an extra $XXXXX how quickly does the market realize that the cost of goods can be raised by that amount. Yeah, I'm convinced state backed student loans has led to the crazy rise in college tuition. student loans should be private (but should 100% be dischargeable via bankruptcy)…

If you make student loans dischargeable and private, wouldn't lenders would tighten up and only give loans to people with good odds of repaying the loans? IE, people from middle class+ could still get loans, but how about the smart kid from a very poor family? Wouldn't they be too risky to give a massive loan to?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#122

Post by hansworst » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 7:40 PM UTC

_lyxd wrote: post #85

rbanffy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing that it doesn't matter how badly you screw up, you'll always be able to cover your most basic needs. This is one. We should go deeper into this question. I most certainly would continue doing a lot of the things I do now, but for fun and to progress the state-of-the-art in my field of work. I'd accept higher taxes in compensation for the assurance I will always be able to do what I do best, instead of what so…

> > People in a functioning society still have to work .. to pay taxes for social services. > I'd accept higher taxes ... how do you pay for these taxes if you have no job/income?

This assumes people just stop doing anything of value if there no longer is a proverbial stick in the form of financial ruin if they stop working.

Nobody is saying that the carrot (personal financial gain) needs to be removed from the equation. Just that everyone is guaranteed some basic level of financial support.

Society already produces enough wealth to cover the expense of UBI. Remember it would replace any other welfare systems in place today.

Personally I think I might take a bit more risk, and choose to do something that I personally believe is of actual value to society rather than please some corporation or VC.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#123

Post by renewiltord » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 7:41 PM UTC

mandmandam wrote: post #58

beejiu wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have different definitions of UBI, but in my mind 'basic' doesn't translate to quitting your job and not working. People in a functioning society still have to work.

> in my mind 'basic' doesn't translate to quitting your job and not working In society A, machines and clean energy allow the population to work an average of 20 hours a week. Some, even many people choose not to work at all, but still get access to a basic apartment and have their basic food, social and education, etc, needs met. In society B, machines and dirty energy allow a tiny segment of the population to live…

[flagged]

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#124

Post by willcipriano » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 7:41 PM UTC

jimt1234 wrote: post #79

bko wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the goal to get people to quit their jobs and get a nice apartment? Isn't it supposed to be a minimum base level of support? Why do we keep moving the goal posts? And if everyone quits their job and lives in a nice apartment, where is this money going to come from? The problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work. Start working, you lose your transfer payments. A lot of people are stuck in thi…

Back in my college speech class, a woman gave a presentation basically supporting the "welfare today is a disincentive to work" myth, with emphasis on "today" (or current), while totally destroying the notion that welfare recipients don't "want" to work. She was a stay-at-home mom with 2 kids, her husband commit suicide after serving in Iraq and then being pushed out of the military (this was the 90s when the US mili…

Could have worked under the table. Babysitting would make sense in particular if you are available during the day and have children of your own that you are already watching.

A lot of poor people are really good at convincing themselves they have no choice but to do the thing they wanted to do anyway. It wasn't until I broke free of this attitude was I able to escape myself.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#125

Post by aeturnum » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 7:41 PM UTC

superfrank wrote: post #14

I'm not sure how to address this, but I always wonder how much we can extrapolate the findings from these studies to a universal basic income situation. I feel like giving a small group of people an extra $12000 a year provides benefits for low income people because their yearly income is now higher compared to the median income. Someone who's income is in the 5th percentile may now be in the 10th or 15th percentile…

> Someone who's yearly income is in the 5th percentile is still earning in the 5th percentile.

Isn't this an intended feature of UBI? The idea of UBI is that some level of material support should be guaranteed. It's about bringing "up" the floor, not really re-arranging relative equal and unequal positions. Plenty of people dislike that about it, but it's an intended feature.

That said, this is basically inflationary pressure and we have a lot of tools to deal with inflationary pressure. It is a challenge, but I am always struck by how differently people speak about it in this context v.s. when average incomes rise because the labor market is doing better. On some level, average incomes going up across society is the most normal thing in the world for welfare state capitalism and is one of the challenges we are best-equipped to deal with.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#126

Post by altruios » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 7:42 PM UTC

marcusverus wrote: post #87

altruios wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YES!!!! Not every job is moral, essential or needed, the idea that 'everyone needs to participate with American capitalism as a worker drone' needs to die.

> everyone needs to participate with American capitalism as a worker drone Working a job you don't like is a leaser evil than mooching off of your neighbors. The level of entitlement required to argue the opposite is absolutely mind boggling. How many people have to work full time to support one able-bodied layabout? UBI may make sense in the event of technology-induced mass unemployment, but folks won't tolerate it…

Working a job you don't like isn't the issue.

Working a job that makes the world a worse place because you need to survive is the issue.

It IS less evil to do nothing and be fed than to take up arms in a factory that produces produces that people want, but is poison (cigarettes, as an example). Paying people to prevent exploitation from plantation owners is a good thing.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#127

Post by heylook » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 7:42 PM UTC

ixwt wrote: post #84

andy_xor_andrew wrote: post #77

I'm dumb and have no real education in economics. But even my dumb self makes the correlation that in 2020/2021, we handed out free money to keep people afloat (a very good thing), and then immediately following there was a surge in inflation. So I guess I don't understand, how do you give out free money without devaluing the currency? Am I making an incorrect correlation between the stimulus checks and the subsequen…

The difference is that money was created then for that purpose. In an ideal universal basic income, the money comes from taxes; not just printed on the spot. This to my (probably base and naive understanding of economics) would not result inflation, because it would be a re-circulation/flow of tax money, rather than injecting new money to the economy.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. It also really matters which people get the money. For example: we printed gazillions of dollars after the 2008 financial crisis, but "inflation" was super low that whole time. What happened? We gave that money to banks and owners of financial assets, so the stuff that they buy more than others was what got inflated aka houses and startup equity (yes, your startup equity!) and the stock market and yachts and stuff. In 2020 we gave a bunch of money either directly to every individual or to their bosses to give to them, so a different set of things got inflated. What do wage workers buy more of with their money? Groceries et al. Home rental prices are through the roof, but home purchase prices are not. My guess is we see home price deflation (or at least lower-than-otherwise inflation) unless interest rates start getting cut again, which they will probably do because the people that get to influence and make that decision all benefit financially or politically from cutting those rates, but I digress.

So my (old, bachelors) degree in econ gives me a story that makes sense, but surely a more recent or grad-level or professional economist can probably point out all the ways I'm deluded. One of my physics teachers once told me that every year they start by telling you that everything you learned last year is a gross oversimplification and now they're going to teach you the way it "really" works.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#128

Post by steelframe » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 7:45 PM UTC

If you were to hand out $1k a month to everyone in my area an immediate result would likely be that rents would increase by somewhere close to $1k a month.

Everyone needs somewhere to live. Everyone wants to live closer to where they work and where there friends and family are. Housing is in limited supply. If everyone had more purchasing power, then everyone's going to collectively bid up what they're willing to pay for housing simply because they can.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#129

Post by Brechreiz » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 7:46 PM UTC

steelframe wrote: post #128

If you were to hand out $1k a month to everyone in my area an immediate result would likely be that rents would increase by somewhere close to $1k a month. Everyone needs somewhere to live. Everyone wants to live closer to where they work and where there friends and family are. Housing is in limited supply. If everyone had more purchasing power, then everyone's going to collectively bid up what they're willing to pay…

That's a good example for why we can't leave housing in the hands of investors.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#130

Post by brigadier132 » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 7:47 PM UTC

nehal3m wrote: post #106

s1artibartfast wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cards on the table: I think the vast majory of people would do less, and perhaps very little socially productive work without the current financial incentives. > Would paying more to the people who now don't need to work, but are willing to, suffice? This is not possible because you cant simultaneously pay workers more (as a whole) and have them subsidize the non-working. I admit it may be possible to reallocate comp…

> Cards on the table: I think the vast majory of people would do less, and perhaps very little socially productive work without the current financial incentives. I don't disagree, but aren't you implicitly admitting here that the vast majority of people don't want to spend their lives doing work? We get a few laps around the sun, once, before we return to oblivion. It seems a tragedy to me to force almost everyone in…

People dont want to work but they want the benefits of other peoples labor. Simultaneously they try to fight the automation that would lead to a world were humans dont need to work for things to exist