Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Work disincentives hit the near-poor hardest (2022)

niskanencenter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 127 posts

Re: Work disincentives hit the near-poor hardest (2022)

#111

Post by zozbot234 »

littlestymaar wrote: post #109
zozbot234 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labor income is very important at the top end. The work a CEO performs in her superintendence of a large company generates what's economically labor income, even when paid as stock grants, options or the like. Basically all professional income (including that of devs) is labor income, not capital income. (Besides, optimal taxation models also say that capital income should not be taxed at all, and you should concentr…

> Labor income is very important at the top end. The work a CEO performs in her superintendence of a large company generates what's economically labor income, even when paid as stock grants, options or the like. Basically all professional income (including that of devs) is labor income, not capital income. If the CEO has a significant voting power in his company, then it's capital income even if the said income is “a…

The optimality results are drawn from modeling assumptions that happen to be fairly general, not from any specific political views. For instance, much of the real-world political advocacy of UBI or cash transfers towards low-income folks is downstream from arguments about the predicted efficacy of this as a kind of redistribution; the arguments are not themselves politically motivated. The argument for taxing pure rents only, as opposed to productive capital, is structurally quite similar; as is the general argument for paying careful attention to incentive effects at the top end of the income distribution.

Re: Work disincentives hit the near-poor hardest (2022)

#112

Post by estimator7292 »

ternus wrote: post #12

I can't find the original tweet, but someone (half?) jokingly proposed a law that all benefits must be defined as continuously differentiable functions (thus making cliffs impossible). "Yeah, I made $1M last year. Here's my SNAP check for six cents."

You jest, but as an unemployed student I was approved for $6/mo of SNAP.

Like... for what possible purpose would the calculation even go that low? Just deny the application instead of wasting everyone's time and resources. I have no idea how long they put $6 into the account. I never bothered to look.

Re: Work disincentives hit the near-poor hardest (2022)

#113

Post by mmooss »

drekipus wrote: post #63
mmooss wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that be implemented on an individual basis? Force drug-induced psychosis (obviously not)? Just kick people off of support? That will have obvious, very bad downsides. And then we'll have a bigger problem with homelessness (which will get the same response). While I don't downplay your experience; do you know of research that talks about it? The idea that people need incentives is an old one - Bill Clinton's…

I guess it really is too broad of a sector to think of any clear cut solutions. I'll tap out, but my main shtick is the poverty programming but. I think k that perpetuates. I would agree with housing first. Definitely something that goes a long way. But it's also not clear cut (IE: too many recovering drug addicts in the same neighbourhood will bring each other down..) While some people might only be on welfare tempo…

> I don't mind the idea of letting certain elements die.

> takes me on good faith

The first overwhelmingly rules out the second. It just makes you a psychopath (if true, which I doubt) or very much not in good faith.

Maybe some people would be ok with letting you or me die - would that be ok? Would it be clever and cool to post on HN?

You don't need to play the victim to identify yourself. One thing victims do, however, is have no compassion for others because - they're a victim!

Re: Work disincentives hit the near-poor hardest (2022)

#114

Post by eru »

paganel wrote: post #87
eru wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are mixing up lots of different ideas. You can have net transfers to the poor without turning most of your country's into net recipients. I also don't understand why you assume that people who are net recipients would stop complaining or voicing their opinion? That's not at all what happens in practice.

You're turning the "poors" into slaves, into slaves to the Government that is keeping them (the "poors") on the Government's payroll. I'm not "mixing" anything, so if we can please leave that condescending tone behind that would be best. > who are net recipients would stop complaining or voicing their opinion Why? You're asking why the "poors" will have second thoughts about openly criticising the hand that, literall…

> Why? You're asking why the "poors" will have second thoughts about openly criticising the hand that, literally, feeds them?

No, I'm not asking why the poor would stop complaining. I am pointing out that empirically we observe that people who receive government largess don't shut up! (And that's true for all kinds of government largess, eg also for subsidies for rich people or companies.)

No, the "why" question I am asking is: why do you think that recipients of government handouts would shut up, when in the real world they haven't done so?

> You're turning the "poors" into slaves, into slaves to the Government that is keeping them (the "poors") on the Government's payroll.

Would you say the same about eg car drivers, if the government provides roads free of charge to the user? Or about anyone who benefits from national defense? Or are in-kind benefits excluded from your calculus? In that case, would giving poor people food and clothing and shelter instead of money mean they are no longer 'slaves' by your definition?

(For comparison: real-world, actual slaves like in the American South were usually provided with in-kind benefits to keep them alive. Money rarely changed hands, partially because it leads to autonomy.)

Re: Work disincentives hit the near-poor hardest (2022)

#115

Post by gsf_emergency_6 »

alephnerd wrote: post #99
eru wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's actually plenty of examples out in the real world with competent administration to learn from. Especially if you generalise enough to look at how pockets of competence work even in an otherwise abysmal system, instead of demanding overall competence.

What you end up seeing is those cases of "competence" only worked in cases where administration and legislation was aligned. But even in those societies you'd still see problems which are distinct, but problems nonetheless.

GP might be saying that analyzing _differences_ in how perf targets are met in say, VN&CL (or SG&CH IE&HK TW&SI KR&DK) might be most productive. As you mention, in particular, how are their sad paths ("problems") different? Or the same?

Now there are subdepartments of study devoted to this very question (empirical study of the legislative-administrative divide) , but in the US I'm hard-pressed to list the corresponding think-tanks :) I suppose some MBA level depts in the US will have to suffice

Re: Work disincentives hit the near-poor hardest (2022)

#116

Post by eru »

gsf_emergency_6 wrote: post #115
alephnerd wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you end up seeing is those cases of "competence" only worked in cases where administration and legislation was aligned. But even in those societies you'd still see problems which are distinct, but problems nonetheless.

GP might be saying that analyzing _differences_ in how perf targets are met in say, VN&CL (or SG&CH IE&HK TW&SI KR&DK) might be most productive. As you mention, in particular, how are their sad paths ("problems") different? Or the same? Now there are subdepartments of study devoted to this very question (empirical study of the legislative-administrative divide) , but in the US I'm hard-pressed to list the correspondi…

Going on a tangent:

I wish in the US more areas of policy would be decided at the state level, and I wish more state government would flip coins to decide on their policy. (Even better, if we can push it down to county level.)

The first part is about subsidiarity, which is a good idea anyway. But together this is just a tongue-in-cheek plea for doing more randomised, controlled experiments. (Alas, we can't blind them.)

Re: Work disincentives hit the near-poor hardest (2022)

#117

Post by alephnerd »

eru wrote: post #116
gsf_emergency_6 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP might be saying that analyzing _differences_ in how perf targets are met in say, VN&CL (or SG&CH IE&HK TW&SI KR&DK) might be most productive. As you mention, in particular, how are their sad paths ("problems") different? Or the same? Now there are subdepartments of study devoted to this very question (empirical study of the legislative-administrative divide) , but in the US I'm hard-pressed to list the correspondi…

Going on a tangent: I wish in the US more areas of policy would be decided at the state level, and I wish more state government would flip coins to decide on their policy. (Even better, if we can push it down to county level.) The first part is about subsidiarity, which is a good idea anyway. But together this is just a tongue-in-cheek plea for doing more randomised, controlled experiments. (Alas, we can't blind them…

> I wish in the US more areas of policy would be decided at the state level, and I wish more state government would flip coins to decide on their policy. (Even better, if we can push it down to county level.)

The overwhelming majority of policy is decided at the state and local level in the US so long as it's not foreign policy or monetary policy related.

Whatever is decided on the Hill has no bearing once administration and implementation comes to play - which is overwhelmingly done by state and local government.

This is why the US has become increasingly dysfunctional over the past few years - state and local elections which were previously staid affairs became polarized partisan affairs because turnout is low and the overwhelming majority of decision making roles are elected.

Re: Work disincentives hit the near-poor hardest (2022)

#118

Post by gsf_emergency_6 »

alephnerd wrote: post #117
eru wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going on a tangent: I wish in the US more areas of policy would be decided at the state level, and I wish more state government would flip coins to decide on their policy. (Even better, if we can push it down to county level.) The first part is about subsidiarity, which is a good idea anyway. But together this is just a tongue-in-cheek plea for doing more randomised, controlled experiments. (Alas, we can't blind them…

> I wish in the US more areas of policy would be decided at the state level, and I wish more state government would flip coins to decide on their policy. (Even better, if we can push it down to county level.) The overwhelming majority of policy is decided at the state and local level in the US so long as it's not foreign policy or monetary policy related. Whatever is decided on the Hill has no bearing once administra…

Flipping GP's tangent on its head (after all states in the US are akin to countries in the EU/EA:)

If you can't blind them find them

I suggest that, absolutely, state governance has _already_ generated lots of excellent data >> federal level :) probably much more accessible than corporate governance data )

Of course YC's Seibel might have something to say here, it's probably not a new perspective

Re: Work disincentives hit the near-poor hardest (2022)

#119

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

tt24 wrote: post #108
ehnto wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true for the US, because minimum wage is so low you can be working full time and still be below the poverty line. The poverty line is not minimum wage, it's the amount it takes to afford to live.

Nobody in the United States makes minimum wage.

that's true. lots of people make tipped minimum wage which is way lower

Re: Work disincentives hit the near-poor hardest (2022)

#120

Post by eru »

alephnerd wrote: post #117
eru wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going on a tangent: I wish in the US more areas of policy would be decided at the state level, and I wish more state government would flip coins to decide on their policy. (Even better, if we can push it down to county level.) The first part is about subsidiarity, which is a good idea anyway. But together this is just a tongue-in-cheek plea for doing more randomised, controlled experiments. (Alas, we can't blind them…

> I wish in the US more areas of policy would be decided at the state level, and I wish more state government would flip coins to decide on their policy. (Even better, if we can push it down to county level.) The overwhelming majority of policy is decided at the state and local level in the US so long as it's not foreign policy or monetary policy related. Whatever is decided on the Hill has no bearing once administra…

I wish you were right. NYC can't even charge people for their using their roads (whether that's driving or parking) without the state and federal governments getting involved.
Post reply on HN