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

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

#281

Post by 52-6F-62 » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

simonsarris wrote: post #156

daemonk wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the demographics of those that dropped out of the work force? Didn't some UBI studies observe that while there are people that dropped out of the workforce, these people consisted of mothers that can now go back to child rearing or younger people that can now pursue an education?

It is extremely unfortunate but studies like this are almost always done by people with somewhat close-ended goals. This research in this one is mostly self reports, and then, mostly "did free money make you feel better?" They are not recording, or interested in recording, the nature of who dropped out of the workforce and why, even though that seems like far more important, and somewhat more empirical, information.

In your criticism you are missing some crucial details surrounding this report.

This is essentially scrounging to make the most out of what was a single, but fully budgeted, study on BI with the intention of running more studies.

The study was cancelled by the incoming government out of spite. All people who set up plans, knowing the full length of the study beforehand were suddenly tossed out of the program and it was just down, including any study occurring.

They're trying to gather what and any information they can from the program that wasn't even given the chance to run to completion.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/basic-income-pilot-project-fo...

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

#282

Post by secondbreakfast » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:00 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…

I haven't heard a compelling reason as to why the basic reality you point out wouldn't be true with UBI. It applies more to housing than to healthcare (we'd be delighted to build more hospitals and hire more nurses, but we can't make Manhattan bigger).

Georgism at work.

Places with lower building regulations and higher property taxes would likely fare better with UBI than places with locked housing supply and extreme building regulation, such as San Francisco.

If it was possible to build more housing, then I'd expect more housing to get built with UBI and rents to not go crazy. Otherwise, we're just pumping more steam into a turbine...

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

#283

Post by ctdonath » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

frandroid wrote: post #160

ctdonath wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is the lack of colloquial objective definition of "poor". The US "poverty line" is at 80th percentile of world incomes. The US's vast welfare/entitlement system ensures few indeed net less than that line, shoring up their shortfall with trillions of $. What constitutes "poor" keeps shifting. There will always be a bottom 10%. There is ongoing increase to the standard of living, instilling a sense of "nobody s…

People have studied the problem you talk about. Their statistical tool to address it is the GINI coefficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

Interesting (I'll study further), but still fixated on "inequality". I don't care that Elon Musk has billion$ and I don't, I care that I have a "tiny house" bare minimum of nutrition, environment (heat/cool/humidity), waste disposal, energy, mundane medical care, and living space - with which I can be reasonably expected to live an optimal lifespan (within a standard deviation), processing raw resources at minimal cost.

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

#284

Post by calgoo » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #178

auiya wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be willing to bet in most workplaces, about 20% of the workforce is dead weight - especially those in the management chain.

Very few workplaces have 20% management. A few businesses have experimented with radically flattening the organization and cutting out management layers; this has generally not improved productivity or financial results.

True, but I think the question should be if the company is worse off without the baggage management, not if they are more productive or have better financial results.

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

#285

Post by Erwin » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

billmalarky wrote: post #163

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…

You're forgetting about growth. Is UBI possible today? Probably not. Quick googling (so take my numbers with a grain of salt but my point is to illustrate not be exact) says US economic growth the last 10 years has been ~45%. If that trend continues today's $3 trillion budget could be $4.5 trillion in 2030 - UBI starting to look much more possible. Another decade of 50% growth and the budget is $6.75 trillion in 2040…

The inflation has also increased the prices, at 3.22% average over the last 100 years each 10 years increases prices with 37%.

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

#286

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #263

danenania wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 sta…

Watching your parents handle a high-powered executive job very much does prepare you for work in the 21st century - a certain kind of work, anyway.

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

#287

Post by 1kGarand » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

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…

As long as you and others _choose_ to define value of a person only for their economic value (work output), we will always have poverty, no matter how enormous our total economic output (humans+machines) will become.

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

#288

Post by Supermancho » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #195

wongarsu wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that 20% of work time is spent on social media or other personal matters across all office workers.

I'd be very surprised if it was only 20%. By my estimation many office jobs are 50% or more just being paid to sit at a desk.

And the less well paid jobs (eg Veterinary Assistant - not technician or McDonald's employee) have individuals working near constantly. There is a class divide under the 1% which is also quite stark, with regard to work demands.

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

#289

Post by 52-6F-62 » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

larrywright wrote: post #276

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…

Do these studies account for people who drop out of the workforce to pursue education or training? It seems like that would be one of the benefits: allowing someone who is under skilled and working a low skill job to quit and focus on acquiring the skills they need to get a higher paying job.

AFAIU That's what a number of the people were doing on the Ontario program. That and looking to start a business.

They were promised 3 years and planned around that before the program was suddenly pulled out from under their feet after they'd already made major life changes.

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

#290

Post by nennes » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

toolz wrote: post #246

nennes wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a common argument to justify inequality. If learning is the key, then why is there such a huge income disparity between men and women? Are women lazy and don't learn?

What you're arguing for is equity, not equality. We already have equal opportunity. As for the gender wage gap, if women are so disadvantaged - exactly how do they make up 85% of consumer spending?

How do we have equal opportunity? Can you point me towards evidence of this? I guess you're not arguing about the gender wage gap, as it's a well documented fact. What is the point you're trying to make?