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

A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 552 posts

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#311

Post by clavalle »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #135
onion2k wrote: post #33

One of the first pieces of advice I had when my company landed its investment was to pay ourselves a decent (not extravagant) wage so that my time went on worrying about the company rather than how I was going to afford to do things in my personal life. The same is true for employees - if they're paid a good living they will spend more time on thinking about problems in their job instead. If a government were to do t…

"If a government were to do that for everyone it seems pretty obvious that society will be better off - people will spend their time working on things to improve everyone's life rather than worrying about how to afford their rent." Looking at populations of people who have gone from being very poor to being very rich overnight does not support that statement. Most of the time the money is more of a curse than anythin…

>I think there is are a few hidden premises here that need to be called out

That's what the experiment is for.

But let me put this bug in your ear:

Most economic models are based on the premise that people can walk away from a potential transaction with no losses. That when people trade value, each party leaves the table with more value than they brought to it but if they leave they are no worse off. That's a large part of the brilliance of the free market -- value is continually created.

However, this breaks down when one party loses value if they walk away, negative utility, especially if the other party knows it. And it is especially troublesome when that negative utility is expandable e.g. when the alternative is pain or death -- things people will generally pay whatever they can to avoid. That's why strong arming is not considered good economic policy. It can lead to net destruction of value. In some cases this can be ignored because the value created for one party more than makes up for the value destroyed for the other party but, in general, it is more than possible that the net effect is negative.

With the poor they might not be threatened directly but the consequences of not, say, selling their time for less than it is actually worth can be just as bad as if someone was robbing them.

We're not talking about making people rich, we are talking about removing desperation and avoidance of death and pain as a motivating factor.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#312

Post by knodi123 »

In a heavily automated society, the only question we need to answer is, should people have only as much money as they have earned, or only as much money as they need?

If the former, then it will be seen as almost immoral or evil to give a comfortable wage to someone who didn't earn it.

If the latter, then it will be seen as almost immoral for the one guy who owns the robotic factory to reap all of the profit and earn a fortune every year by having made workers redundant.

The third option is to eschew automation entirely and keep a steady supply of make-work jobs, just to justify enough salaries to keep everybody from starving. Which strikes me as more dystopian than the oligarchy in option #2.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#313

Post by eli_gottlieb »

anticon wrote: post #52
onion2k wrote: post #33

One of the first pieces of advice I had when my company landed its investment was to pay ourselves a decent (not extravagant) wage so that my time went on worrying about the company rather than how I was going to afford to do things in my personal life. The same is true for employees - if they're paid a good living they will spend more time on thinking about problems in their job instead. If a government were to do t…

People starting companies are driven, determined people who want to create things. The vast majority of people are not. You're vastly over-estimating the general population. The majority are lazy, and if given money, will sit watching reality TV and stuffing their face with ice cream. (Step outside the startup bubble for a while). Most people are also selfish. The idea that they'll all start doing things to benefit o…

So you oppose selfishness when the masses do it, but support it when Startup Ubermenschen do it?

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#314

Post by Lawtonfogle »

noreasonw wrote: post #201

What about the following flavor of Basic Income: In order to reduce the amount of money needed to support the BI scheme, you are given a card to buy some standardized products: jeans, bread, soup, chairs, tables, beds, bikes, ubuntu and the like. The main point is that those products are cheaper to produce and distribute. You lose some of the power of money but since society is paying the bill I think you should acce…

It'll be gamed by corps wanting to get their products on the approved list while cheaper products might end up not being approved. I've seen government justify buying items costing 4 times the price with less than half the features due to cost saving measures, because the expensive crap was approved but the cheaper consumer item was not.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#315

Post by Lawtonfogle »

belorn wrote: post #29
jlarocco wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem there is that you have a cushy programming job. The bigger question is what about the gas station clerks? Or cleaning people? Or wait staff? Or any of the people working the millions of other jobs that just totally suck. Having done it in the past, I'm 100% sure nobody wakes up totally stoked to go bus tables or wash dishes. So, maybe people who have awesome jobs will just keep doing what they're doing, b…

If you are 20-something living on minimal income that barely covers food and a roof, would you take a job working as a gas station clerk in order to afford to go out and eat and socialize, buy a drink in a bar, or participate in the culture of everyone else around you? If you asked a anthropologist, I suspect you would hear a pattern of human beings doing all kind of work in order to increase their status in society…

>If you asked a anthropologist, I suspect you would hear a pattern of human beings doing all kind of work in order to increase their status in society and finding a mate.

Being a garbageman wouldn't help with this nearly as much as spending 4 hours in the gym and then spending 4 hours building socializing skills. Especially since the other side is now guaranteed being provided for thus reducing the already low impact that being a good provider has on mate finding.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#316

Post by JulianMorrison »

knodi123 wrote: post #312

In a heavily automated society, the only question we need to answer is, should people have only as much money as they have earned, or only as much money as they need? If the former, then it will be seen as almost immoral or evil to give a comfortable wage to someone who didn't earn it. If the latter, then it will be seen as almost immoral for the one guy who owns the robotic factory to reap all of the profit and earn…

The third option is what society does now. Every time you hear politicians talk about "creating jobs", that's what it means, nearly always: the amount of available make-work just went up.

We don't so much eschew robotics, as under-bid them. McDonalds finds it cheaper to hire humans than automate - for now. (The touch screen, card-accepting menus I've seen appearing lately, make the case that this won't last much longer.)

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#317

Post by JupiterMoon »

moonchrome wrote: post #309
JupiterMoon wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also that's not how I saw basic income schemes suggested, usually it's paid out to people below min income and then progressively lowered to some point This is not basic income.

Yes it is - it's been a while since I studied economics but I beleive it's called negative income tax.

NO basic income is a flat amount paid to everyone regardless of their income.

What you are talking about is called means tested in work benefits in my country. It is bad - for all the reasons you mentioned but it is not basic income.

Criticise basic income if you want (please do so if you are trained economist) but please do understand what it is before doing so otherwise you are merely burning a strawman.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#318

Post by logfromblammo »

saalweachter wrote: post #290
DougWebb wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have to factor in the fact that for most government welfare-type agencies a large portion of their budgets are spent running the bureaucracy, rather than going out to the people. Universal Basic Income greatly reduces the overhead costs. So £1 of Basic Income doesn't replace £1 of a current welfare program; it replaces £2 or £3 of the current program. Put another way, if the current welfare spending is £120…

Eh, government bureaucracies in first-world aren't as inefficient as some people make a living claiming. In the US, administrative expenses for Social Security run less than 1% of the budget. Medicaid and Medicare run with similar margins. Compare this to private-sector insurance in the US, where 80-85% "medical loss ratios" (ie, the fraction of premiums paid out for medical care, as opposed to the fraction kept for…

Bear in mind that "administrative expenses" can mean one thing to ordinary people, and something quite different to a government-sponsored accountant.

When Medicare/Medicaid pays $150 for the same type of crutch that sells in a local pharmacy for $15, that difference does not go into "administrative expenses". I might prefer the expense of a human employee driving to Walgreens, buying a crutch off the shelf, and delivering it by hand to the patient that needs it, rather than paying a hospital that big markup just because that's the most they can charge without the benefits management program automatically denying the expense. Because even if it costs $135 in labor and transportation for a human to do all that, the mere possibility that might happen would discourage the hospital from charging significantly more than the pharmacy across the street for exactly the same item, or from charging different prices to different people based on their insurance plans.

It would even work to just give the patient $150 in cash, and tell them to buy a crutch with it and keep the change. Or carve one out of a tree branch and keep all of it. If they end up not having a crutch, it won't be because they couldn't afford it.

You can't rely on a bureaucracy's reports on itself to reveal the inefficiencies of that bureaucracy. There is just too much political pressure to cook the books.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#319

Post by knodi123 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #166
merijnv wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says it has to be a company? How about that guy that wants make music but doesn't have the time to practice due to work. The girl that wants to paint, but is to tired after work. Why does everything have to be about companies and money? Can't you really imagine any useful social, artistic, or other things these "dumb, lazy" people might want to invest their time into? How about just being a stay at home parent an…

How about science or engineering? Imagine how it would be if scientists actually had time to read papers in their field, perform experiments and pursue some research goals, instead of cranking paper after paper in order to stay employed? What about all those social projects that people want to do, but don't have time to really support?

> Imagine how it would be if scientists actually had time to read papers in their field, perform experiments and pursue some research goals

That's part of the reason why most scientists before the 1900s were wealthy men from the upper class.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#320

Post by knodi123 »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #316
knodi123 wrote: post #312

In a heavily automated society, the only question we need to answer is, should people have only as much money as they have earned, or only as much money as they need? If the former, then it will be seen as almost immoral or evil to give a comfortable wage to someone who didn't earn it. If the latter, then it will be seen as almost immoral for the one guy who owns the robotic factory to reap all of the profit and earn…

The third option is what society does now. Every time you hear politicians talk about "creating jobs", that's what it means, nearly always: the amount of available make-work just went up. We don't so much eschew robotics, as under-bid them. McDonalds finds it cheaper to hire humans than automate - for now. (The touch screen, card-accepting menus I've seen appearing lately, make the case that this won't last much long…

> The third option is what society does now

Yes, I did start off stipulating "in a heavily automated society". I don't think we're quite there yet, but we will be soon, and increasing our make-work programs in lock-step with the progress of automation is a quick road to dystopia #3.

Post reply on HN