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

211–220 of 427 posts

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#211

Post by bduerst »

billmalarky wrote: post #162
bduerst wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that there can only be one cause of real estate price increases. Housing prices are a function of income elasticity - raising the income for everyone will raise housing prices for everyone. Note - this is not the only way that real estate prices can increase (as you described urbanization), but it is one that BI would cause.

>raising the income for everyone will raise housing prices for everyone This is a truism but incorrect in the context of this conversation. UBI does not increase incomes for everyone. It is a wealth redistribution. Many will see their income fall, especially initially, in order to prop up the incomes of the poor and those who decide to live solely off UBI.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) at it's core increases income for everyone - universally.

What you're thinking about is a negative income tax or some other BI that is disproportionately weighted.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#212

Post by nnfy »

maxxxxx wrote: post #203
vasco wrote: post #28

I would speculate that any end date on this scenario will invalidate results. What a person does if it is guaranteed a job for life vs 5 years is wildly different, as you'll need to make sure when those 5 years are up, you'll be ready to enter the job market again, etc. I believe the same will happen with basic income. If we want to study where people gravitate to more fulfilling jobs, feel happier and so on, you nee…

You also have to look at the effect of UBI over generations. Children growing up with UBI may never see people close to them who do actual work. I once had a summer job at a welfare/employment agency. A lot of the people who received welfare in the second or third generation often had no idea how a job works. They were late all the time or just didn't show up for a week. The social worker had to explain to them how a…

>A lot of the people who received welfare in the second or third generation often had no idea how a job works. They were late all the time or just didn't show up for a week.

I dont understand. You have seen firsthand how entitlements ruin people, and you're arguing that UBI will be good for society?

Edit: why the down votes? Are adults who do not understand the concept of a job not a problem? How else could so many of them live without this knowledge if they weren't being handed out the resources to enable them?

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#213

Post by bduerst »

pc86 wrote: post #144
bduerst wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

BI is the opposite of socialism when it's coupled with dismantling certain pieces of the social safety net. We don't need WIC or CHIP if we have universal BI, for example.

Yes, BI involves dismantling certain pieces of the social safety net to replace it with a social safety net. The party that opposes wealth redistribution will oppose BI.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#214

Post by mkempe »

staunch wrote: post #176
laser wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the government guarantees a basic income, you're really only guaranteed (at best) until the next election cycle. Just recently, seven years after its passing, the ACA was nearly reverted, which would have kicked millions of people off government-subsidized health insurance plans.

Pensions are a great use-case for smart contracts. I would feel much safer having my retirement assured by a blockchain than a bureaucrat.

Better yet, one could have completely private pension plans, where everyone is safe from both bureaucrats and kleptocrats.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#215

Post by Karrot_Kream »

nnfy wrote: post #212
maxxxxx wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have to look at the effect of UBI over generations. Children growing up with UBI may never see people close to them who do actual work. I once had a summer job at a welfare/employment agency. A lot of the people who received welfare in the second or third generation often had no idea how a job works. They were late all the time or just didn't show up for a week. The social worker had to explain to them how a…

>A lot of the people who received welfare in the second or third generation often had no idea how a job works. They were late all the time or just didn't show up for a week. I dont understand. You have seen firsthand how entitlements ruin people, and you're arguing that UBI will be good for society? Edit: why the down votes? Are adults who do not understand the concept of a job not a problem? How else could so many o…

> You have seen firsthand how entitlements ruin people

My grandfather received a very lucrative PhD offer at a very prestigious American university, but he didn't have the money to make the trip himself, and airplanes were much too expensive for him. So he found a ship in the harbor that was taking a passage to the US and volunteered to be a deck-hand.

Now his grandkids, those in India and those abroad, drive cars, go to fancy bars and restaurants. I've never been a deck-hand in my life, and I have cousins who have never even seen a boat up close.

It's easy for us to think that "entitlements ruin people" because it allows us to legitimatze our individual struggles, but it takes a leap beyond to comprehend whether our struggles should mean anything or are simply an artifact of the technology and logistics we have available to us.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#216

Post by ThrustVectoring »

zanny wrote: post #142
mfoy_ wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I have approximately 0 faith in the pension plan my government(s) have in place. I'll save for my own retirement so I'm not high and dry when they mismanage the funds or change policies or whatever.

While it is less likely, nothing is guaranteed. You assume your investments will be around until you cash them out for retirement, and they are all dependant on something not failing: * Direct stock ownership depends on the company growing, not failing, not being bought out, etc. * Mutual funds depend on the fund manager not going under / properly managing assets. * Bonds depend on state institutions honoring them. *…

>Mutual funds depend on the fund manager not going under / properly managing assets.

Err, no. This is not a risk of properly structured mutual funds. The manager does not directly hold assets - they make decisions about what to do with the assets, which the custodian executes. And the fund's management has no recourse to the assets held by the custodian. How the fund goes under is if the assets they hold go to zero value.

There's still execution risk, though, which is why passive management is ideal. I'm pretty sure VTSAX can successfully hold a market-cap weighted mix of the 3600 largest US firms pretty much indefinitely. The risk is that the largest US firms stop being generally profitable, like what happened in Japan.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#217

Post by swlkr »

vasco wrote: post #28

I would speculate that any end date on this scenario will invalidate results. What a person does if it is guaranteed a job for life vs 5 years is wildly different, as you'll need to make sure when those 5 years are up, you'll be ready to enter the job market again, etc. I believe the same will happen with basic income. If we want to study where people gravitate to more fulfilling jobs, feel happier and so on, you nee…

I'm not sure if I or the people here are representative of the people the proposal targets, but if I had a guaranteed basic income for 5 years, I would attempt to start a startup full time.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#218

Post by padobson »

Will this research enable conclusions about the macroeconomic effects of UBI? It seems like it'd be difficult to predict how national and international markets will react to an entire country suddenly receiving a UBI based on a study of only a few thousand people.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#219

Post by jpao79 »

I think a better direction would be if YC Research could figure out a process to growth hack a new high density city from scratch instead of everyone crowding into physically constrained existing city. Make YC entry conditional on relocating to somewhere besides Silicon Valley/San Francisco. Maybe somewhere in California (Redding, Modesto) so you have the same rules/regulation as in California but with minimal earthquake risk, plenty of land and existing water resource Maybe even do something like the Amazon second headquarters RFP.

Sort of like what PG describes here: http://www.paulgraham.com/pgh.html

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#220

Post by laser »

jaggederest wrote: post #172
laser wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it could occur slower and over a few generations but sooner or later poverty is back." But, if the UBI is set to a percentage of GDP, then as overall wealth increases, the wealth of those depending on UBI increase. In the past few generations, ex. since the 1950's, real GDP has grown 6x [1] while the population has only doubled [2], meaning the real wealth of our society has grown three-fold in "a few generations".…

I'm not sure that it gives good incentives to have it directly linked to GDP. I think it would make more sense to have a circuit-breaker type provision where if GDP increases by more than x% the amount increases by y%, but I doubt we would want to decrease it immediately when GDP decreases, since that has the potential to cause a runaway feedback loop.

That's really smart. I hadn't even considered that and was naively operating on a default assumption of increasing GDP. Especially during a recession, adjusting the basic-income downwards with GDP could create a devastating runaway feedback loop. I think as you wouldn't want the economy to grow faster than basic income, though, in the circuit-breaker-style implementation as GDP increases by more than x%, the amount should also increase x%, by default. When the GDP is assessed, say annually, it should only increase or maintain the current basic income rate. In the event of an unprecedented long-term decrease in productivity, the congress should be required to take action to lower the payouts.
Post reply on HN