YC set to launch one-year minimum income pilot project to figure out logistics

Post by yummyfajitas » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 4:04 AM UTC

honkhonkpants wrote: post #190

yummyfajitas wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did we read the same article? Consider their headline number - Missouri. Testing cost $336k and found 48 drug users. Assuming welfare costs $10k/person, it saved $480k making it a net positive. All the other states they discuss had significantly higher returns (5-10x). This all assumes not a single drug user was deterred from applying and also that not a single welfare recipient was deterred from using drugs. Further…

The reason these rely on surveys instead of urine tests is because courts have deemed mandatory testing to be an unreasonable search, while random testing based on reasonable suspicion hasn't been shut down by courts (yet). Florida tried to have mandatory testing for all welfare recipients but the courts threw it out. Nevertheless, these results are really astonishing and I think you're looking at them all wrong. Som…

Post by melling » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 4:14 AM UTC

winstonewert wrote: post #86

melling wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make it sound as if we are going to run out of work? We can always increase the level of education then have more research scientists and engineers, for example. Imagine if we did 10x the amount of R&D.

Does everyone have the capacity to become a research scientist or engineer with enough training? I think we'll have to find some creative ways to use low-skilled labor.

Post by chockablock » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 4:20 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #127

daveguy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assertion is that none of those are inherent qualities of a group. Reduced work effort is a chicken egg issue. Of course people on welfare are going to have reduced "work effort" -- joblessness is probably what made you have to get it in the first place. Same with drug consumption. I would question any "higher drug use" measure as selection bias -- investment bankers aren't generally being drug tested are they? T…

A further claim is that increasing welfare reduces work effort. Is this disputed? I don't know why we are discussing drug tests for welfare, but simple arithmetic provides a very low bar for them to be cost effective. Google suggests a drug test costs $10-30. If welfare costs $15,000/year, then you only need to have a 0.2% positive rate for it to be worth it. Do you think folks on welfare do drugs at a rate lower tha…

Post by pmorici » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 4:47 AM UTC

TheCowboy wrote: post #12

karmicthreat wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might skew it, but YC is probably trying to answer a more fundamental question. If people are provided a minimum lifestyle what will they do? I don't think anyone really knows if it will be a golden age of entrepreneurs and self improvement. Or if people will just sit on the couch, have kids till they can't afford them, become addicted to drugs.

I understand this, but ignoring what I mentioned means the question becomes, "What would people, who are provided a basic income in addition to basic government services, do?" For example, an important question is if the implementation would require disbanding Obamacare, reverting to the old system, etc. The ability to obtain healthcare can sway a lot of outcomes. I might have pursued a more entrepreneurial path in t…

Post by pmorici » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 4:56 AM UTC

jacalata wrote: post #161

chronic81 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect. The rent will precisely increase by 1000 Euro. Yes you can compare percentages all you want, but at the end of the day, 1000 Euro basic income is 1000 Euro more for everyone. That will be directly plowed into everyone's (for example) personal rent/housing budget or tolerance, which translates to inflated rental prices. If I make $15K/month and receive a $1K/month basic income, I'll gladly pay $1K/m…

You can give me all the money you want and I won't spend any of it on housing. In fact my income has gone up 50% in the last five years and my housing expenses haven't changed at all.