People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by loa_in_ » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

a0zU wrote: post #238

Kalium wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might it be worth considering that choosing to not work and choosing to contribute to society in other ways could, for some people and in some circumstances, be slightly different decisions?

There are absolutely people who would contribute to society in other ways but there are also people who would not work, not contribute and, sit in their rooms all day not having the will to do anything but debate with strangers on internet forums(lol). In my opinion the problem with UBI is that it would take away the necessity for people to do something to survive and it would make a significant minority of the popul…

There is a lot of things to do other than consume. Even if it's learning to write poetry

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

#262

Post by bittercynic » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #151

hinkley wrote: post #129

I want UBI and a 30-32 hour work week, so I guess I’m proposing a 20% “disincentivization”. Would fewer people in the workforce really be so bad? What’s the carbon and water footprint of all of these goods we really don’t need but we bust our humps for anyway? At this point, more robots don’t mean more of the stuff we need. they mean more stuff we don't need.

> Would fewer people in the workforce really be so bad? Yes. Someone needs to work to produce the goods and services they use, as well as fund their UBI. The more people who opt out of working, the harder everyone else must work to compensate. > What’s the carbon and water footprint of all of these goods we really don’t need but we bust our humps for anyway? People dropping out of the workforce doesn't reduce the dem…

> People dropping out of the workforce doesn't reduce the demand for those goods and services.

It might, if the price of labor goes up and makes those goods and services more expensive.

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

#263

Post by commandlinefan » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

danenania wrote: post #218

simonsarris wrote: post #88

This is very misleading reporting. First: All studies so far show a pretty consistent ~10% work disincentive. This is what all the detractors say when they say it disincentivizes work. So how about this one? From actually reading the study's conclusion: > Slightly less than one-fifth were employed before but unemployed during the pilot (17%) So even worse than what we've seen so far. 17% dropping out of the labor mar…

"If you consider multi-generational entrenchments of poverty as its own problem, worth serious merit, then the work disincentive could be a disaster." Multi-generational entrenchments of poverty are already a disaster, and not because of fuzzy ideas like "instilling a work ethic", but because many millions of people lack the basic material resources needed to fulfill anything close to their potential. A kid watching…

> doesn't prepare them to do anything

Wait, what? I mean, I guess that just watching your parents work doesn’t “prepare” you for work any more than watching TV does, but that’s because it’s completely unrelated. Watching your parents go to high-powered executive jobs doesn’t “prepare” you for work in the 21st century either, education does. My father was a police officer (they don’t make much money) and my mother stayed home with us - they both encouraged us to study so we could do better than they did. Watching my father go off to a dangerous job every day didn’t “prepare” me for work, but it did help me grow up with a sense of “work is part of adult life” that I wouldn’t have gotten if he’d spent every day watching TV and drinking beer.

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

#264

Post by pingyong » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #99

pingyong wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coming from Germany (not Canada, but maybe closer to Canada than the US in terms of spending): Housing absolutely , health care probably not for most people. But yeah, if you live on full time minimum wage here that's ~1200€ per month, of which probably 500-800 depending on where you live will go to rent. And if it's 800, it would probably be 1800 if everyone got 1000€ per month. So in that sense, he might be right.…

At the bare minimum, if the monthly income from rental properties doubled, I suspect that would have a major impact on housing development. It all depends on why development isn't happening, but I have a really hard time imagining that supply would not increase even if the major restrictions are due to other factors than development costs.

Well, the thing in Germany is that (1) there is actually a decent amount of new housing being built in cities but (2) there are often strict limits around where you're allowed to build, what you're allowed to demolish, and how high you're allowed to build. And during the past 5 years, demand has vastly outpaced supply. Property prices and rents in cities are absolutely insane, and there is no indication that that is going to stop.

And the reaction to it from people is quite... shortsighted? From my perspective. Often the exact people who would benefit from a better housing market vote for parties who are more restrictive in terms of new buildings. There's this perception that new buildings are only being built for "rich" people, which is true, but it also means the rich people aren't competing for your shitty apartment anymore. But somehow, people don't really think about that.

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

#265

Post by ctdonath » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #244

ctdonath wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because humans need an objective minimum to survive. Below that they face slow death. There's a difference between social norm vs existential need, and many people have a vested interest in conflating the two. There has to be a baseline standard, amounting to triage, above which "your core needs are met, and you have a path to thrive on - up to you to do you now." Maybe there's another moving standard of minimum stan…

> Because humans need an objective minimum to survive. I don’t even agree with this. Even for starvation there’s no clean dividing line. Malnutrition leads to reduced lifespans and health problems. I think that quality of life both can and should increase as society improves its technology and wealth.

You're bolstering my case. "Malnutrition" is, obviously, below the line I'm trying to draw. Meet the line, and you fundamentally want for nothing, no "reduced lifespan and health problems". Humans have a natural lifespan; what is the minimum necessary to support that (aside from externalities brought on by personal choice or random $#!^)?

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

#266

Post by loa_in_ » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

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…

People providing those things wouldn't need as much as they do now.

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

#267

Post by bluntfang » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

rmah wrote: post #161

hinkley wrote: post #129

I want UBI and a 30-32 hour work week, so I guess I’m proposing a 20% “disincentivization”. Would fewer people in the workforce really be so bad? What’s the carbon and water footprint of all of these goods we really don’t need but we bust our humps for anyway? At this point, more robots don’t mean more of the stuff we need. they mean more stuff we don't need.

To use different phrasing, what you're saying is that you want people to be poorer. Please understand that I don't mean this as a personal attack on you, your beliefs or philosophy. But from a different perspective, that really is what you're saying. Do you really want to say that? Perhaps a better alternative is: a good goal would be to allow people to have more while using less natural resources and polluting the e…

>To use different phrasing,

I don't find this style of discourse productive. Why do you insist on putting words in their mouth in an attempt to lead them down the discussion you want to have instead of what's being presented? Asking for clarification on why you don't understand their statement could be more productive, but I don't think you're interested in that anyways.

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

#268

Post by xzel » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:55 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #234

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #170

From my personal point of view, basic income SHOULD disincentivise work; it's a boost for society, health, well-being, children, etc. Because in the current economy, a lot of people have to work unreasonable hours, multiple jobs, and have all people in a family work to make ends meet, at the cost of personal health and well-being, personal time, having children at all or having more children, getting married and buyi…

> From my personal point of view, basic income SHOULD disincentivise work; it's a boost for society, health, well-being, children, etc. Somebody has to do the work though, until robots do everything (and then declare war on us), you need somebody to take away the garbage, pick the fruits and unclog the toilets. Disincentivizing work doesn't make that go away, it just means you'll put that load on fewer shoulders.

A lot of work today is pretty much bullshit/meaningless; I mean look at 85% of the US insurance / medical billing professions are useless and only exist because there is manufactured bureaucracy. Bullshit Jobs is a great book looking into to this. Also UBI shouldn't be disincentivizing work, it should be allowing people to explore more fulfilling pursuits.

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

#269

Post by dqpb » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:55 PM UTC

crystaln wrote: post #187

simonsarris wrote: post #88

This is very misleading reporting. First: All studies so far show a pretty consistent ~10% work disincentive. This is what all the detractors say when they say it disincentivizes work. So how about this one? From actually reading the study's conclusion: > Slightly less than one-fifth were employed before but unemployed during the pilot (17%) So even worse than what we've seen so far. 17% dropping out of the labor mar…

Part of the reason for ubi is that a lot of work is exploitative or underpaid. Ubi puts people in a negotiating position to not work and demand higher payment, or to not work and contribute to society in other ways.

Or to not work and not contribute to society.

I’m not opposed to ubi per se, but your enumeration was incomplete.

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

#270

Post by a0zU » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:56 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #129

I want UBI and a 30-32 hour work week, so I guess I’m proposing a 20% “disincentivization”. Would fewer people in the workforce really be so bad? What’s the carbon and water footprint of all of these goods we really don’t need but we bust our humps for anyway? At this point, more robots don’t mean more of the stuff we need. they mean more stuff we don't need.

I agree that we all have so much stuff that we don't need, but in such an incredibly consumerist society we can't really seperate what we want from what we need without a massive cultural revolution. On top of that our current capitalist society only works because people buy lots of things that they don't need.