Moving Forward on Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#31

Post by djschnei » Tue, May 31, 2016, 4:51 PM UTC

Setting aside whether or not redistribution is ever justified, I do respect the pragmatism of the UBI granted it replaces all other forms of welfare. Faced with a choice between the current welfare state and a UBI, the latter is a no brainer.

While not specifically a UBI, the negative income tax seeks to accomplish the creation of a similar safety net while still maintaining a strong profit motive for the people benefiting from it. A negative income tax is something I would definitely get behind.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#32

Post by perlgeek » Tue, May 31, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #16

Honestly, I think any "Basic Income" research where the recipient classes aren't 100% of the members of some well-defined polity and where the policy is explicitly a close-ended pilot is researching something so fundamentally different from Basic Income (it is well-known that close-ended benefits have a different effect on behavior) that, while there may be some useful insights that have applicability to actual Basic…

They specifically write that the pilot is for figuring out technicalities, like how to transfer the money.

So, pilot, not study.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#33

Post by sama » Tue, May 31, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

Fede_V wrote: post #5

I think it's great YC is funding some interesting research. I'm a bit curious as to why they didn't partner with some established academics in this area (there's plenty of economists who have done excellent research here) rather than start a new program - but it's YC's money, and they can choose how to spend it. How open do you plan to be about things like datasets/analysis plans and so forth? I think this would be a…

We did consider it, and we are working with some established academics.

However, I think it's a good idea to push forward alternative models of doing (and funding) research. Frankly, most of the existing institutions we thought about partnering closely with were somewhat bloated, and it would have made the whole study significantly more expensive and slower.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#34

Post by kauffj » Tue, May 31, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

Unfortunately, the explanation most consistent with data on happiness/satisfaction is that the primary utility gain from wealth is derived from gains in zero-sum social status.

We can tell this even from the language of the post itself: "everyone should have enough money to meet their basic needs."

Basic needs? Everyone in America has their basic needs. Almost all of the _basic_ needs of a human, i.e. those that we received 50,000 years ago, could be provided for $1-$2k a year. We consider modern needs beyond these to be 'basic' because there is a nature in our humanity, or the humanity of most of us, that doesn't like it when people are so far apart from one other in power or status.

As such, it's likely that this study will find, entirely correctly, that recipients are happier, more productive, etc. What they won't discover is how people behave when basic income is the status quo, rather than being the equivalent of a lottery winner. I suspect the results will be vastly different.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#35

Post by emblem21 » Tue, May 31, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

Why not look into Saudi Arabia's unlimited social safety nets instead of reinventing the wheel?

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Asia-and-the-Pa...

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#36

Post by diyseguy » Tue, May 31, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

stevefeinstein wrote: post #24

I think tis is a step in the right direction, but I can't help but think that raising the floor still leaves people there on the floor. Won't inflation, as well as increased demand for the things people need just raise prices of those things out of reach of those on the floor negating any benefit?

That's what I imagine happening too. $1K a month sounds great until inflation renders it equivalent to $100 a month. Perhaps it could be adjusted for inflation in some way.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#37

Post by arcanus » Tue, May 31, 2016, 4:54 PM UTC

diyseguy wrote: post #26

dclowd9901 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...aaaaand whether or not your children would be receiving it, right? We make many rather large financial decisions based on our choices to procreate or not. If I didn't know if my kids were taken care of, I would probably make different decisions than if I did. There really is no way to test basic income without simply implementing it.

Oooh, yikes, this could become an incentive for people to have tons of kids - so they can get more basic income.

> this could become an incentive for people to have tons of kids

Or, alternatively, to have fewer kids, if they were planning (as many parents in the USA do) to provide financial support for college to those children.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#38

Post by mattkrisiloff » Tue, May 31, 2016, 4:54 PM UTC

badloginagain wrote: post #21

andreasklinger wrote: post #8

Question: Wouldnt it make more sense to pick an more isolated ecosystem than oakland? Eg a smaller town or even a small country (eg an island country - yes sounds crazy but actually why not) Or is the goal rather to find out how people will act? (as in: get lazy or not)

I don't think how isolated the ecosystem is too important. I would be more concerned with the methodology of measuring how behaviour has changed- Are they going to follow around candidates before the checks come rolling in to establish baseline behaviours?

We're going to have a control group for the pilot that doesn't receive an income, and following base-line behavior is something we'll consider doing for the main study.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#39

Post by Fede_V » Tue, May 31, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

samnwa wrote: post #20

Fede_V wrote: post #5

I think it's great YC is funding some interesting research. I'm a bit curious as to why they didn't partner with some established academics in this area (there's plenty of economists who have done excellent research here) rather than start a new program - but it's YC's money, and they can choose how to spend it. How open do you plan to be about things like datasets/analysis plans and so forth? I think this would be a…

Any specific examples of established academic research you can link to?

It's such a huge topic - the modern starting point are papers by Galbraith and Tobin. Since then, there's been so much research/discussion it's hard to point to one thing in particular.

If you want good starting points for someone who isn't an economist, the Boston review had a good primer, followed by a public debate:

Article: http://new.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/vanparijs.html

Debate: https://bostonreview.net/forum/basic-income-all/fred-block-w...

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#40

Post by tlholaday » Tue, May 31, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

Are there any papers addressing the issue "basic income increases the returns to owners of scarce goods" issue? I don't know what the correct name is.

Use case:

A 250 square foot apartment in a building with twenty annual homicides rents for $350 per month before basic income. After basic income, the same apartment rents for $1350 per month, because the rent on all the apartments in safer buildings has gone up due to the increased capacity to pay of renters seeking less lethal housing.