A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory • Hacker News Board

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#391

Post by s73v3r » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:07 PM UTC

fwn wrote: post #174

onion2k wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which means the shitty jobs will have to pay more in order to attract people to do them. People should be paid well for taking on a job no one else wants. That's how the free market is supposed to work.

So what makes you think that's not the case? We're not observing a shortage in unskilled work right now.

Because right now, people are forced to work in order to survive. Meaning they have to take the shitty jobs for shitty pay because that's what they can get. If you remove the forced to work part, then they can be more selective.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#392

Post by frogpelt » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:08 PM UTC

a_c_s wrote: post #372

frogpelt wrote: post #362

The basic income concept is intriguing to me (because it simplifies things) but I do not think it will work for this reason: Who administers the basic income? The government and by extension politicians. Once they have every single person who breathes on the dole, this will give them unbelievable leverage against the people. If the government is giving everyone a check, how hard is it to argue that the check should b…

Cutting all the programs needed to enable basic income would mean most public servants would lose their jobs.

I'm talking about elected officials.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#393

Post by s73v3r » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:09 PM UTC

verinus wrote: post #93

when it comes to utopian ideas i would prefer the right to work, to get a job to handing out cash to everybody. my reason: handing out cash destroys the incentives to do better and improve...and not all necessary jobs are actual fun to do and others would surely completely vanish...

Except your vision causes people to be forced into shitty jobs where they're abused by management, because they're forced to do so to survive. Under your vision, there is absolutely no incentive for a shitty, low end employer to really improve, because there are more people that need a job than jobs available.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#394

Post by Rumford » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:10 PM UTC

mattchew wrote: post #259

Rumford wrote: post #220

Economic experiments can never really have a control group, so what the Dutch government learns from this will depend greatly on the theory they already have when interpreting the data.

IIRC the previous article I read on this, the Dutch are at least attempting to set up a control group.

I suppose they should be commended for the effort, but the other issue is that the experimental group is unlikely to represent what things would be like under a truly universal basic income. Incentives throughout the economy will shift and cause reactions none of us can predict, except in very broad strokes. For example, €1000/mo for a tiny experimental group will probably not have the same buying power as the same amount given to millions.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#395

Post by jsprogrammer » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:12 PM UTC

frogpelt wrote: post #362

The basic income concept is intriguing to me (because it simplifies things) but I do not think it will work for this reason: Who administers the basic income? The government and by extension politicians. Once they have every single person who breathes on the dole, this will give them unbelievable leverage against the people. If the government is giving everyone a check, how hard is it to argue that the check should b…

>The government and by extension politicians.

You need a government that extends to the people who are being governed.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#396

Post by refurb » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:12 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #364

The more I think about it, the more I really like the idea of a basic income. One of the great things about universal healthcare is that you just never worry about it. I never have to think about what would happen to myself or my spouse or my kids if they get cancer after I quit or lose my job. Whether my insurance will fight me on some treatment, or if it covers the rights things. It's nice. Basic income seems like…

Whether my insurance will fight me on some treatment, or if it covers the rights things.

I don't think universal healthcare addresses those issues. I'm from Canada and people fight with the gov't all the time over the coverage of medical care and drugs.

Sure, if you have a really common condition you might get everything you need, but if you have a rare condition, you're often stuck trying to fight it out for coverage.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#397

Post by jsprogrammer » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:14 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #364

The more I think about it, the more I really like the idea of a basic income. One of the great things about universal healthcare is that you just never worry about it. I never have to think about what would happen to myself or my spouse or my kids if they get cancer after I quit or lose my job. Whether my insurance will fight me on some treatment, or if it covers the rights things. It's nice. Basic income seems like…

The problem is that income does not get you by. It's a totally abstract concept and cannot sustain a physical being. Maybe an income of potatoes and butter could sustain you.

An income of digital credits only gives you some accounting leverage to access goods in a public market (which may or may not exist).

If there are no doctors, your income won't ensure you receive treatment when you need it.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#398

Post by sliverstorm » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:18 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #364

The more I think about it, the more I really like the idea of a basic income. One of the great things about universal healthcare is that you just never worry about it. I never have to think about what would happen to myself or my spouse or my kids if they get cancer after I quit or lose my job. Whether my insurance will fight me on some treatment, or if it covers the rights things. It's nice. Basic income seems like…

The output side of BI is naturally attractive. Everybody gets money. How could that not be attractive?

I'm just skeptical about how we would fund BI to a level that is meaningful while maintaining some modicum of equitability and equanimity. Just to lift everyone to the poverty line in the USA ($11,770) would require paying out more than $3 trillion in net benefits, or roughly the size of the entire federal budget today.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#399

Post by djb_hackernews » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:24 PM UTC

frogpelt wrote: post #362

The basic income concept is intriguing to me (because it simplifies things) but I do not think it will work for this reason: Who administers the basic income? The government and by extension politicians. Once they have every single person who breathes on the dole, this will give them unbelievable leverage against the people. If the government is giving everyone a check, how hard is it to argue that the check should b…

I can see that being a problem but what about this solution (to be honest I don't see basic income becoming a thing in the United States in my life time)

Peg it to a CPI? GDP? Or maybe codify it in a constitutional amendment?

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#400

Post by pjlegato » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:24 PM UTC

uhwhat wrote: post #225

Fuxy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would wager there will be people who will take advantage of the system and use it as a opportunity to not work and laze around all day however those people will be the one who are not particularly productive in their work anyway. They might find something else to do they might not but that's OK it is an acceptable loss. On the other end companies which used to take advantage of the job market and the fact that ever…

I imagine partitioning living NEEDS [housing, food, transportation] as an area of the economy with its own money/token/basic-income-credits system separate from the WANT economy of everything else.

The problem is the intractable dispute about what things should go into which category. Empirically, there has been a strong historical tendency to move things into the "NEED" category that were traditionally in the "WANT" category.

For example, indoor plumbing was considered a grossly extravagant luxury for almost all of human history. Within the last hundred years, the richer societies have made laws (building codes) that have switched it to a "NEED". The same thing happend with indoor heating systems.

As for food, most medieval European peasants considered themselves lucky if they got a bowl of thin gruel every day. Asian peasants thought they were lucky to get a bowl of rice. Many didn't get anything on many days. Now in the US the government is talking about "food deserts" and shifting many previously "luxury" fresh nutritious foods into the "NEED" category.