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

Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

openresearchlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 669 posts

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#31

Post by robotnikman »

ilaksh wrote: post #22

$1000 is not enough to quit their jobs or get a nice apartment. They could move slightly closer to work if they have to commute. It's not enough for a real tuition or to support them to study instead of work. I don't think we've ever had a universal basic income test. We have always missed the universal and basic part. It's below basic and not at all universal. I suspect that you need to get international cooperation…

I've always wondered why we don't just nationalize our resources and use that income to provide a kind of UBI to residents, similar to what Saudi Arabia or even Alaska does (for residents who plan to stay long term)

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#32

Post by rbanffy »

bell-cot wrote: post #9
cactusplant7374 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Negative income tax? Does that mean the government pays me to work?

Yes-ish. But your employer knows. And he might immediately apply "you'll need less money from me, now" logic.

That's why it should be enough to provide for basic subsistence.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#33

Post by rco8786 »

ilaksh wrote: post #22

$1000 is not enough to quit their jobs or get a nice apartment. They could move slightly closer to work if they have to commute. It's not enough for a real tuition or to support them to study instead of work. I don't think we've ever had a universal basic income test. We have always missed the universal and basic part. It's below basic and not at all universal. I suspect that you need to get international cooperation…

I'm reading this as: anything short of providing everyone globally with enough money to quit their jobs and rent a nice apartment is not UBI.

Which, of course, is never going to happen, nor should it. The term "basic" definitely does not automatically entail quitting jobs or getting an apartment.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#34

Post by [deleted] »

tomr75 wrote: post #24
ilaksh wrote: post #22

$1000 is not enough to quit their jobs or get a nice apartment. They could move slightly closer to work if they have to commute. It's not enough for a real tuition or to support them to study instead of work. I don't think we've ever had a universal basic income test. We have always missed the universal and basic part. It's below basic and not at all universal. I suspect that you need to get international cooperation…

At those levels you just get inflation

[deleted]

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#35

Post by rbanffy »

beejiu wrote: post #28
ilaksh wrote: post #22

$1000 is not enough to quit their jobs or get a nice apartment. They could move slightly closer to work if they have to commute. It's not enough for a real tuition or to support them to study instead of work. I don't think we've ever had a universal basic income test. We have always missed the universal and basic part. It's below basic and not at all universal. I suspect that you need to get international cooperation…

People have different definitions of UBI, but in my mind 'basic' doesn't translate to quitting your job and not working. People in a functioning society still have to work.

> People in a functioning society still have to work

Why?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#36

Post by kevinventullo »

joe_the_user wrote: post #13
legitster wrote: post #5

This is a pretty generous reading of the study. One result they are missing out is that the income actually reduced overall employment compared to the control group, and ended up decreasing household earnings: https://www.nber.org/papers/w32719 Even with a generous reading, it was an extremely expensive study. And similar proposals like the Negative Income Tax would cost far less money and have none of the presented…

Why is it some shock-horror thing that people worked less? I think, for those who imagine AI taking a vast swath of jobs (like Altman), the aim for basic income is to get people working less but without this resulting social/work disengagement (whether AI will have that effect is a different matter).

Moreover, it is possible to create value without making money.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#37

Post by s1artibartfast »

joe_the_user wrote: post #13
legitster wrote: post #5

This is a pretty generous reading of the study. One result they are missing out is that the income actually reduced overall employment compared to the control group, and ended up decreasing household earnings: https://www.nber.org/papers/w32719 Even with a generous reading, it was an extremely expensive study. And similar proposals like the Negative Income Tax would cost far less money and have none of the presented…

Why is it some shock-horror thing that people worked less? I think, for those who imagine AI taking a vast swath of jobs (like Altman), the aim for basic income is to get people working less but without this resulting social/work disengagement (whether AI will have that effect is a different matter).

> Why is it some shock-horror thing that people worked less?

Because significant portion of UPI proponents argue that it will promote working more and higher productivity. The typical argument is that it will remove barriers that prevent better worker-job matching.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#38

Post by [deleted] »

joe_the_user wrote: post #13
legitster wrote: post #5

This is a pretty generous reading of the study. One result they are missing out is that the income actually reduced overall employment compared to the control group, and ended up decreasing household earnings: https://www.nber.org/papers/w32719 Even with a generous reading, it was an extremely expensive study. And similar proposals like the Negative Income Tax would cost far less money and have none of the presented…

Why is it some shock-horror thing that people worked less? I think, for those who imagine AI taking a vast swath of jobs (like Altman), the aim for basic income is to get people working less but without this resulting social/work disengagement (whether AI will have that effect is a different matter).

[deleted]

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#39

Post by wnc3141 »

beejiu wrote: post #28
ilaksh wrote: post #22

$1000 is not enough to quit their jobs or get a nice apartment. They could move slightly closer to work if they have to commute. It's not enough for a real tuition or to support them to study instead of work. I don't think we've ever had a universal basic income test. We have always missed the universal and basic part. It's below basic and not at all universal. I suspect that you need to get international cooperation…

People have different definitions of UBI, but in my mind 'basic' doesn't translate to quitting your job and not working. People in a functioning society still have to work.

I always interpreted the point of the programs as by taking immediate insecurity off the table, you are allowing people to make more long term decisions for their well being.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#40

Post by ihsw »

altruios wrote: post #20
legitster wrote: post #5

This is a pretty generous reading of the study. One result they are missing out is that the income actually reduced overall employment compared to the control group, and ended up decreasing household earnings: https://www.nber.org/papers/w32719 Even with a generous reading, it was an extremely expensive study. And similar proposals like the Negative Income Tax would cost far less money and have none of the presented…

YES!!!! Not every job is moral, essential or needed, the idea that 'everyone needs to participate with American capitalism as a worker drone' needs to die.

[dead]
Post reply on HN