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

Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 348 posts

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#281

Post by rorykoehler »

tfehring wrote: post #77
OneGuy123 wrote: post #4

Based on how most jobs will get automated some form of an UBI will be required sooner or later. Now the only question is: how to you phase in UBI while still rewarding extra productive people to keep creating/innovating? Some will say "those people will innovate out of love". This is not always the case, many people are good at what they do and create many awesome things but given the chance they would rather do some…

UBI isn't socialism. The incentive for productivity under UBI is called capitalism, and it means that the people who want to live more than slightly above the poverty level will continue to work, and the people who want to get rich will continue to innovate and start companies. There are plausible (though obviously untested) arguments that UBI will increase innovation by getting people out of bullshit jobs and enabli…

Precisely. There is no way I could live he life I want on €1200/month.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#282

Post by ponsin »

The problem with UBI trials is that they cost a lot of money to be remotely effective. That is because for it to be somewhat meaningful the amount has to be high, it has to involve a lot of people, and it has to last a long time. I was wondering, what if researchers try it in a very poor country where $10 a month is meaningful. Many countries won't want to do it presumably because money will be leaving their country. However, it will be a relatively cheap way of seeing how UBI would effect inflation, self choice unemployment, and creative inventions.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#283

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

The headline makes it look like this would come from official sources, but it doesn't. It's a private initiative by some non-profit/charity, financed by private donations, and supervised by some researchers. Duration: 3 years. Amount: 1200€ per month. Participants: 120. Control Group: 1300+. Start: 2021.

This is roughly the same as our unemployment benefits, supposedly without the hassle. How health insurance is handled I can't see.

edit: People under 25 would probably benefit more, because currently they are disadvantaged. Something about parents liable for them, having to live at home, getting less because living at home with parents, and so on.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#284

Post by koonsolo »

balfirevic wrote: post #251
koonsolo wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are talking about the net result. But in the end, the government is going to pay everyone this amount. So let's say government taxes income at a higher percentage, so that the middle class basically gets the same net amount. How high will you need to tax those middle class jobs?

If the middle class basically gets the same net amount, they would need to have their taxes increased by the same amount as UBI. That just follows from the premise of your question. What is that in terms of tax rate? I don't know, Dane-pgp seems to have already answered with a concrete proposal.

> That just follows from the premise of your question.

That is a bit too simplistic of a calculation, since a tax rate also affects lower and upper class. You might as well end up with way less tax income by applying that simple rule.

And that complete proposal is very weak: only 666 pounds per month UBI, which doesn't even cover rent, and the average full-time employee loses 4.2K per year. If that is the best, ideal calculatio you can come up with, it is very weak, no?

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#285

Post by mytailorisrich »

rorykoehler wrote: post #278
mytailorisrich wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If UBI means giving everyone 18 and older $1,400 per month (like in this trial) then it is simply unaffordable and unrealistic, even for Germany. If this expense is compensated by extra taxes on individuals then it is pointless. If it means making sure that unemployed people receive a guaranteed minimum income then it already exists. If it means merging all benefits into a single one then it is just a simplication an…

You should read Andrew Yang's plan on how to pay for it. It is far more affordable than you think.

You do not say what this plan is and what UBI you are talking about.

In my example, which is what this trial does, it is plainly unaffordable.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#286

Post by rumanator »

missedthecue wrote: post #2

These studies don't really prove anything. Common arguments in favor of these studies - "They prove people don't quit work on UBI!" - No, they prove that people who are in a program that is very clearly temporary will not end their careers for a short pilot program. This means nothing. "They prove people won't spend it on drugs, booze, and lotto tickets!" - No. If you make $1k from a job and $1k from a pilot program…

> No, they prove that people who are in a program that is very clearly temporary will not end their careers for a short pilot program. This means nothing.

This argument reads like a strawman, and is detached from reality.

The argument about the risk of people quitting their job because of basic income is based on the idea that those who are forced to work shitty jobs to have a source of income (i.e., wage slavery) won't have to subject themselves to it if they already have a source of income.

More importantly, people who live in wage slavery don't have careers, they have a job. They are bound to an activity or even an employer who ensures they have a paycheck as long as they do their job. I mean, do you honestly believe that a minimum wage job doing non-specialized tasks that anyone anywhere can do and can replace you in a moment's notice counts as a career? Of course it isn't. It's just something you do to pay the bills. Do you honestly believe no one would quit that as soon as they have a way to pay the bills?

> No. If you make $1k from a job and $1k from a pilot program each month, you spend the $1k from the pilot on legitimate bills and now you have $1k to spend however you like.

Your take on the program is very disingenuous, specially in the way you try to frame the old job as being the provider of all the brand new goodies and luxuries and fancy spending while the new source of income adds nothing more beyond taking care of the expenses that were already taken care of.

Suffice to say, I'd participants were stuck with their old income, they wouldn't be able to afford anything, would they?

Basic income supplies an income baseline. That means people cease to be tied to a repulsive job just to make ends meet. How they generate disposable income is up to them. With basic income you're free to pick high-reward but low-paying jobs, or even no job at all if you are willing to live a frugal life. That's the kind of change that will be studied in these programs.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#287

Post by mrow84 »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #264
mrow84 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair. > because the stuff they get for existing has to come from someone else. Your statement doesn't hold unless we assume "it is unfair for one person to provide for the needs of another (unless it is reciprocated)", and it isn't at all clear that we can take that axiomatically. Even setting to one side the more ob…

> Your statement doesn't hold unless we assume "it is unfair for one person to provide for the needs of another (unless it is reciprocated)", and it isn't at all clear that we can take that axiomatically. the axiom is more like "it is unfair to force one person to provide for the needs of another." obviously some people would disagree, which is their right. however by making this axiom and their disagreements with it…

> the axiom is more like "it is unfair to force one person to provide for the needs of another."

I think this seems like a reasonable statement (to me), but unlike for the axiom I provided, the original claim, that "fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair", does not immediately follow from your modified version.

Reading over the various answers people have provided, it seems clear to me that many people follow a similar line of reasoning, trying to argue from the (let's take it as axiomatic) unfairness of forcing someone else to do something, but that really isn't a necessary part of the original claim.

Returning to the extreme example of one person who could provide for everyone, we see this line of argument in your counter-question:

> would it be fair to force that person to provide for the needs of everyone, if they could do so but chose not to?

As we have agreed that it is unfair to coerce someone, the answer is clearly "no", but that isn't the only possibility in our scenario, because they could equally have decided that they do want to work to provide for the needs of everyone.

This (to me) makes it clear that the issue really rests on how this individual (and, in the real world, each member of society) feels about their obligations to others. Yes - if they (or we) have decided not to provide for others, then being forced to do so would be "unfair", but if, on the other hand, they (we) are happy to provide for others without coercion, then there is no apparent source of coercion (certainly not from the axiom you provided).

In short, "fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair" does not follow from your modified axiom, and instead is predicated on the beliefs of the "everyone" in question.

As a somewhat separate issue, some appear to have the impression that these kinds of beliefs are in some way fundamental, but to me it is incredibly clear that they are (at least typically) almost entirely socially contingent. Therefore, as I see it, it is entirely possible for society to shift back and forth between one that (collectively) believes in providing for others, and one that does not, without "coercion" in the sense as used throughout this discussion.

> discussion can help us to understand the question better, and perhaps if we realize that there is no "right" answer then that conclusion could still help us to create a society where everyone is better off

I agree!

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#288

Post by tie_ »

dragonwriter wrote: post #197
tie_ wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the UBI money you get would be used to buy something that someone else has produced (an iPhone, a piece of bread, a bottle of wine, etc.). In this sense, the UBI that you are getting represents _goods_ that _someone else_ is producing (and "donating" into the system in the form of taxes). I find this easier to reason about when you take the concept of "money" out of the equation. So,oOption A is that you "donat…

> The big question for me is how would the introduction of UBI ultimately affect that ratio, given that you would be less disincentivized to stay with the underproducing group? The “given” is backwards. Compared to existing means-tested welfare systems, UBI funded by additional high-end taxes provides less disincentive to move out of the underproducing group. If the minimum support level provided by UBI is used (in w…

> If the minimum support level provided by UBI is used (in whole or in part) to offset and reduce minimum wage, it also reduces the barriers to people moving immediately to a less-inderprodicing level, and eventually up and out of the underproducing group.

You can get rid of minimal wage with or without UBI. In fact Germany just recently introduced minimum wage - there was none before. The lack of it was clearly not regarded as boon to the society. The barrier effect is minimal, if any.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#289

Post by rorykoehler »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #285
rorykoehler wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read Andrew Yang's plan on how to pay for it. It is far more affordable than you think.

You do not say what this plan is and what UBI you are talking about. In my example, which is what this trial does, it is plainly unaffordable.

Read his plan

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#290

Post by michannne »

zestyping wrote: post #129
michannne wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it interesting that even after a worldwide pandemic has proved that the majority of humans will prefer to act selfishly to maintain their own comfort level, you still somehow hold out hope that given literally free money, that the majority wouldn't also use this money selfishly to maintain their comfort level.

Having purpose and fulfillment is self-serving. Most people would find it depressing to sit around and do nothing.

So I should somehow believe that regular people, most of whom already have an excess of money after you deduct necessary survival expenses, will suddenly become artists and creators when given just a bit more money? This thread is laughable, and shows just how little semblance any opinions here have with reality
Post reply on HN