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

Basic Income Research Proposal

basicincome.ycr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 427 posts

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#121

Post by notahacker »

kolbe wrote: post #83
mfoy_ wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the end game, certainly, but having guaranteed income and additional programs doesn't hurt the experiment. The idea is you can help pay for UBI by cutting the then-superfluous programs. But the benefit for people is in having the unconditional safety net, not in having access to only one program.

In the end, though, isn't that just an observation of how people behave with marginally additive wealth transfers? Shouldn't we have enough people who chose the annuity option of a lottery or had an unknown trust bequeathed to them to adequately study this phenomenon? I thought the real idea to be tested would be to take away the $1000/mo section 8 house, and instead give the recipients $1000/mo, and just see if they…

Also, if we're making the usual assumption a UBI is intended to replace [most] needs assessment of state benefits, we need to test how people respond to having $2500/month value in various state cash and in-kind benefits replaced by $1000/month in cash (with the difference pocketed by people hitherto deemed less in need of support)

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#122

Post by creaghpatr »

canjobear wrote: post #82

A huge part of what makes basic income appealing is that it is unconditional and guaranteed. Otherwise it seems like it would create unsafe levels of government control. For many people, BI would end up being a large portion of their income, such that losing it would be catastrophic. Now those people would become beholden to any government demand made on penalty of revoking BI. If a government enacts unconditional BI…

This is already an issue with Medicaid. 65 million people depend on the government for free healthcare and cannot afford to lose it.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#123

Post by ghaff »

nimos wrote: post #103

I think peoples choices in a situation like this will be wildly different than if there was a government provided basic income that was available forever, or at least had the appearance of being available forever. Having extra money for a couple years doesn't let you permanently exit the workforce in the same way a permanent basic income would. As well I think for established people with kids and other commitments 10…

>Rent a cheap house with friends, smoke weed, and play videogames sounds like a pretty decent option to a lot of 18 year olds. Or even younger maybe?

I suspect a lot of people here don't appreciate this because they (and many of their friends) have a much different mindset. But I can easily see a lot of that sort of behavior and then, ten or fifteen years in, they decide they want something more out of life, start a family, whatever. But now they're 30 years-old with no skills, never having worked a real job, minimal education, etc. Pretty hard to do a reboot at that point.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#124

Post by bduerst »

billmalarky wrote: post #116
eric_b wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, basic consumer staple price inflation is something I never see addressed with any satisfaction when people are talking about UBI. Housing prices and rent will assuredly rise proportionally to the basic income amount if this were to be implemented nationally, so wouldn't pumping all this money in basically just have the effect of increasing inequality?

>Housing prices and rent will assuredly rise proportionally to the basic income amount if this were to be implemented nationally, so wouldn't pumping all this money in basically just have the effect of increasing inequality? Unlikely. UBI removes the connection between location and income. As a result you can move to somewhere incredibly cheap to live since there's no need to be in an in demand market in order to hav…

If people in every location have their income increased, then the housing prices inflate in every location. Saying, "People can just move" is missing the point.

It isn't that they can't afford to live where they are now, it's that BI will be absorbed by price inflation everywhere.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#126

Post by mholmes680 »

nabla9 wrote: post #110
roceasta wrote: post #35

I like the idea of basic income but I confess that my ideal of a basic income recipient is someone akin to the 19th-century amateur scientist subsisting on a private income whilst making original contributions to human knowledge, and, as a side effect, to society. Whereas the reality of people receiving free money might be somewhat different. There's the drip, drip welfare payments of just enough money to survive wit…

There is already sizeable group of have independently wealthy people with inherited money. If we look at how many of these people behave in different wealth categories, it might give a clue. If it's determined that money makes lazy and that's moral hazard there should be really high tax for inheritance.

Easy answer: they lose it.

http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/ "It takes the average recipient of an inheritance 19 days until they buy a new car."

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#127

Post by mbesto »

Jedi72 wrote: post #57

Basic Income is often proposed in conjunction with cutting basic social services & welfare payments, thus achieving a net gain for the government. This seems to make it attractive to both the neoliberals and the neosocialismés, but I believe this is a terrible mistake that will have the exact opposite effect to what its supporters intend - there will be more poverty and debt slavery, not less. (Methodology debates as…

> to both the neoliberals and the neosocialismés

You're right - it serves both conservative and liberal ideals, which is a good thing.

> but I believe this is a terrible mistake that will have the exact opposite effect to what its supporters intend - there will be more poverty and debt slavery, not less

Watch this to understand why it would not be the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#128

Post by IncRnd »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #51
FreakyT wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely, and this is also the problem with every* other basic income study that's been conducted over the past few decades. If you promise basic income for only 5 years, then I'm probably not going to quit my job and become an artist because I can't be unemployed for 5 years and expect to waltz back into a job. If you promise basic income "forever", then I'm far more likely to retire at 30 and plan to never work a…

Would you not work? Basic income is nearly not enough to access luxuries. Sure you should be able to live off it, but I think most people would likely want more, the difference from forced equality being that you can still work and keep that as luxury money.

The question really isn't whether someone person on Hacker News would want to work.

A better question would be, "how many would report their work out of an entire country was offered a basic income?" There are already data points for comparison, when that question is asked.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#129

Post by unholiness »

liquidise wrote: post #30

One factor that would be lost in a controlled, basic income test is the inflation effect. Implemented on a national scale, cost inflation of basic consumer needs is a near certainty. On a controlled test of 1000 people inflation would be nearly impossible to achieve without localizing the test to an absurd degree. I could see this test could serving as a dataset for calculating anticipated inflation rates on a nation…

Currently we have an economy that motivates companies to spend 1000x more capital developing innovations for a consumer with 1000x more buying power. Basic income introduces a source of capital that motivates companies to innovate in that area of "basic consumer needs", i.e. things needed by the majority of people, not the majority of dollars.

You're right that the short-term effect of this is indeed inflation on the prices of these needs, but the long-term effect is larger portion of the economy dedicated to filling basic needs instead of superfluous luxuries.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#130

Post by xienze »

bduerst wrote: post #113
xienze wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of BI, I disagree. Politicians will see this for what it really is -- the most direct way to buy votes (by promising increased BI). It would be quite popular with both parties, I'm sure.

One party's platform is built on the fear of socialism - they will most definitely oppose this and use it to get votes, but by egging it publicly.

If we're living in a world where BI is a reality, it will be embraced. Once social programs are implemented, they're nearly impossible to remove -- see ObamaCare. Republicans have given up on going back to the old system and have, well, embraced a tweaked ObamaCare under a new name. They'd do the same with BI.

"Democrats promising $30K BI? Well we're gonna do $35K!"

Post reply on HN