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

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

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 809 posts

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

#131

Post by SolaceQuantum »

ethanbond wrote: post #117
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With basic income, we may just raise the cost of those things. The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. It's true of anything that causes the poor to have more money . Lower unemployment, higher wages, anything. Heck, it's true of lower healthcare costs, because people would have more money for housing, or vice versa. Housing costs and healthcare costs are problems, but they're independent problem…

> The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. It's true of anything that causes the poor to have more money. "The conclusion of this argument is deeply inconvenient, therefore the argument is wrong." It's actually true that rising wages result in higher rents. It's plainly obvious that this is the case - otherwise why would anyone care about rent explosion wherever Amazon decides to put HQ2?

> It's actually true that rising wages result in higher rents.

Do you have a study you can point to, since this is trivial?

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

#132

Post by thedance »

dvtrn wrote: post #102
macspoofing wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Right now there are explicit subsidies for housing and healthcare. If they get replaced with a UBI in the same amount Good luck with that. UBI is barely tolerated by the left and progressives but only under the constraint that it doesn't replace any existing social welfare programs. The minute UBI advocates start pushing it as a replacement is the minute that progressives will squash it.

UBI is barely tolerated by the left and progressives but only under the constraint that it doesn't replace any existing social welfare programs. Where can I read some of these articulated positions for myself? Any particular articles or writers that made a substantial impression on you with these positions that you'd recommend I read?

I imagine he's talking about the response to the Yang campaign, where liberals quite rightly derided his plan to replace all "entitlement" programs with the dramatically smaller $1000/mo UBI. If someone who has been a life-long libertarian looks like he's trying to drive a wedge into social welfare programs, that's probably what is happening.

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

#133

Post by exabrial »

The end does not justify the means. Forcibly removing someone's money and transferring it to another person can never be justified. Tax-funded UBI is theft, slavery, and extortion.

However, if a billionaire wishes to privately sponsor UBI, this is a completely different story in charity and example that should be regarded. It's important to differentiate between the two, but unfortunately most UBI schemes refer to extortion, not charity.

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

#134

Post by lonelappde »

pingyong wrote: post #95

I really, really like the idea of UBI. However, some napkin math: In the US, with ~250 million people being eligible, a $1000 UBI would cost ~$3 trillion. That's almost the entire budget of the US. How is this even remotely realistic right now? Even if you can cut other spending in half due to it, you'd need an additional $1.5 trillion in "income" essentially. Is that something that would even be possible? How many r…

Under 200million working age people Seniors already get BI via SS.

People with good paying jobs would pay additional tax that cancels out UBI.

So only the half earning below median would actually take cash out. That's 100M, or $0.5T net expense, a substantial but not order of magnitude tax increase.

Even median is above living wage, so you could reasonably cut even further.

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

#135

Post by whatshisface »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #128
whatshisface wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. It's true of anything that causes the poor to have more money. Lower unemployment would be associated with a greater availability of goods and services, so that would get it out of the trap. Higher wages would also be associated with a supply increase if they came with increased productivity, but if you raised the minimum wage then prices of low-end product…

> Lower unemployment would be associated with a greater availability of goods and services, so that would get it out of the trap. That's assuming the goods and services are locally consumed, which in a global economy they're commonly not. A jet engine factory that moves in and hires a bunch of people reduces local unemployment, but that doesn't mean any of the local workers are in the market for jet engines. > Higher…

>That's assuming the goods and services are locally consumed, which in a global economy they're commonly not.

But in a global economy that's irrelevant: the greater availability of jet engines where they are used will cascade eventually into a greater availability of bowling balls in the town where they make jet engines.

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

#136

Post by Timpy »

triceratops wrote: post #122
Timpy wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people rely on friends as non-monetary resources. If I get locked out of my car right now I'll call a family member to bring me a spare key. If my car is acting up I have a friend that will look at it for me. I do a lot of tech support in return, not necessarily in exchange for other services in a direct way. It's just being part of a community. At least in my world (midwest US) I cannot imagine moving to an…

But with UBI, maybe larger networks of people could move together. For example, a single mom can't move to a new city to take a job because she relies on her parents for childcare, and her father can't leave his job. But with UBI they could all move together if it made sense for them. Her extended family could move with her and pay for expenses with UBI until they all found new jobs.

I agree, I'm sure there are cases where UBI would enable people to move, I just don't think it's going to be a big paradigm shift/massive migration/stir the melting pot kind of thing.

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

#137

Post by thedance »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #38
throwaway13337 wrote: post #5

The issue I see with basic income is that most money is spent on housing and health care. These two things are supply constrained so it's more of an auction for who can afford them. With basic income, we may just raise the cost of those things. This problem wouldn't appear in a study that distributed to only some individuals. We need to solve the regulatory or otherwise organizational problems of these things to prov…

> With basic income, we may just raise the cost of those things. The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. It's true of anything that causes the poor to have more money . Lower unemployment, higher wages, anything. Heck, it's true of lower healthcare costs, because people would have more money for housing, or vice versa. Housing costs and healthcare costs are problems, but they're independent problem…

You're right about the housing. If we have government policy that restrains supply (as we clearly do) and at the same time a government policy that stimulates demand (UBI) rents are guaranteed to increase. That doesn't mean UBI is bad, it means the government needs to adopt a radical supply program for housing. Every landlord in America should be put out of business.

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

#138

Post by vzidex »

winstonewert wrote: post #91

I don't think this fits the definition of basic income. > Whatever income participants earned was deducted from their basic income at 50 per cent That is equivalent to a massive 50% tax rate on every dollar earned. It seems to me the whole point of UBI is that its universal and not conditional on how much you earn otherwise.

Yup, this combined with the difference in income for couples vs. individuals mentioned by another commented smells to me like the program had a lot of means testing built in. I wouldn't be surprised if this skewed the results of the experiment in ways that reflect badly on it.

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

#139

Post by samstave »

throwaway13337 wrote: post #5

The issue I see with basic income is that most money is spent on housing and health care. These two things are supply constrained so it's more of an auction for who can afford them. With basic income, we may just raise the cost of those things. This problem wouldn't appear in a study that distributed to only some individuals. We need to solve the regulatory or otherwise organizational problems of these things to prov…

The issue i see with basic taxes is that most of that money is spent on the military.

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

#140

Post by danans »

jsonne wrote: post #61
sp332 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because moving to places with lower cost of living, to speak extremely broadly of course, means less income compared to cost of living, meaning a lower standard of living. But with a guaranteed income, a lower cost of living would always mean a benefit to standard of living.

This is true in theory but not in practice in my experience. I presently live in one of the bottom 5 states in terms of population density and there are multiple manufacturing plants that require no experience, are paying 60k+ for new hires, and are in extremely low COL areas. By the way, they can't find enough people to apply and are having to aggressively advertise to fill entry-level spots. I think the issue is mo…

People are not exclusively driven by economics, nor are they immune to economics. For a lot of people, moving to a place with lower COL would mean giving up community and family in their high COL areas. Those networks provide a lot of security that doesn't appear on the books.

These are quality of life trade-offs that are different for everyone.

Of course, the younger or more flexible you are, areas like yours might be a good opportunity, but it's not a obvious win for every entry level job aspirant.

Post reply on HN