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

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

#321

Post by ConfusionMatrix » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:16 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…

When my kids were younger my wife and I had to work to pay the bills, but the majority of her income went to child care. After a year or so I got a raise and she could be a stay at home mom and our kids just jumped ahead mentally with mom their to interact with them all day.

If UBI could enable a parent to stay home full time that would be a very good use of funds.

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

#322

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #227

bo1024 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow that. HQ2 was about creation of new jobs and immigration of more people into the area. For a fixed supply, higher rents are caused by a larger number of people demanding housing at the current prices. Higher wages only affect that by (a) causing immigration into the area, or (b) raising people out of poverty so that they can afford housing when they couldn't before.

Hypothetical landlord: “All my tenants are now earning an additional $1k per month and nothing prevents me from raising prices. But I won’t raise rents because... reasons.”

Even where there are housing supply constraints, they still can't raise rents by the full $1000/month because that would give tenants $1000/month more incentive to move to a different city without housing supply constraints.

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

#323

Post by allovernow » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

avanderveen wrote: post #251

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #12

> The three-year, $150-million program Three year. Would you quit your job, and move somewhere cheaper if you knew the money will run out after three years, and you'll have a three year gap in your CV? Are there really no lottery winners winning lifetime monthly payouts to study? Because, if you gave me 5x average earnings for three years, I wouldn't quit my job. But if you guaranteed the money for the rest of my lif…

> non-productive for society Why? I feel like a lot of people want to do things that are productive for society, that we have too little of right now. Things like producing art of all forms, building things, increasing their level of communication with those around them, participating in community events and activities, etc. Sure, these things aren't economically productive, but they're still productive for society,…

>Why? I feel like a lot of people want to do things that are productive for society

Most of the things that are productive for society require study and practice of skills that aren't particularly interesting to the vast majority of people.

>Sure, these things aren't economically productive

The vast majority of things that are productive for society are economically productive. That's why people pay for things.

We don't need UBI to go toward funding artists and musicians. That's a waste of resources. Particularly considering that far too many people are likely to choose the easy way out, pursuing "what they love", i.e. soft skills like art and music. You also drastically underestimate the number people who are perfectly content with doing drugs and watching TV/playing video games all day.

Unfortunately while resources are scarce, human nature is such that people require incentives to do the things that need to be done.

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

#324

Post by easytiger » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

hooande wrote: post #239

sabarn01 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should fear being destitute its the natural human condition. Learning skills is the only way to make wealth.

No person who was born rich has to learn skills to avoid destitution. And poverty isn't the natural condition for humans any more than it is for cats, or any other animal.

Yea sure. No one ever blew a fortune

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

#325

Post by megous » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

loa_in_ wrote: post #255

luckylion wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From my personal point of view, basic income SHOULD disincentivise work; it's a boost for society, health, well-being, children, etc. Somebody has to do the work though, until robots do everything (and then declare war on us), you need somebody to take away the garbage, pick the fruits and unclog the toilets. Disincentivizing work doesn't make that go away, it just means you'll put that load on fewer shoulders.

But lack of personnel to do jobs would bump the wages due to demand and that would quickly find people ready to fill them in

Or it would kill the businesses operating at the margin of profitability.

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

#326

Post by 76543210 » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

daemonk wrote: post #144

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…

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?

Child rearing seems like a waste of talent.

Our high cost of education should be teaching people to create more value than the 15k/yr of value it is raising a child before the age of 5.(daycare costs, 4 children per 1 adult)

As an ancedote, it seems part time mothers are significantly happier than stay at home moms.

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

#327

Post by bluGill » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

hooande wrote: post #239

sabarn01 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should fear being destitute its the natural human condition. Learning skills is the only way to make wealth.

No person who was born rich has to learn skills to avoid destitution. And poverty isn't the natural condition for humans any more than it is for cats, or any other animal.

Books are filled with once great families with a name, and nothing else, struggling to survive. It is common for someone to be born rich, gamble it all away and leave nothing (other than maybe an education) to the kids.

There are rich who live their children much, but most children of the rich who remain rich have to work to stay rich. Yes there is a big advantage that being born to wealth gives to keeping it - but that advantage isn't any guarantee.

I have in my lifetime seen plenty of starving cats - we took pity on them and took them in. I've seen evidence of mass freezing to death in wild animals after the herd eats all the food.

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

#328

Post by wtdo » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

loa_in_ wrote: post #255

luckylion wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From my personal point of view, basic income SHOULD disincentivise work; it's a boost for society, health, well-being, children, etc. Somebody has to do the work though, until robots do everything (and then declare war on us), you need somebody to take away the garbage, pick the fruits and unclog the toilets. Disincentivizing work doesn't make that go away, it just means you'll put that load on fewer shoulders.

But lack of personnel to do jobs would bump the wages due to demand and that would quickly find people ready to fill them in

And bumped wages means higher costs which are passed on to customers. The higher prices means having to raise UBI, and the only way to afford that is by increasing taxes, and so effective take home pay from those bumped wages isn't as high as everyone thought and now we're back to square one.

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

#329

Post by ip26 » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #129

I want UBI and a 30-32 hour work week, so I guess I’m proposing a 20% “disincentivization”. Would fewer people in the workforce really be so bad? What’s the carbon and water footprint of all of these goods we really don’t need but we bust our humps for anyway? At this point, more robots don’t mean more of the stuff we need. they mean more stuff we don't need.

Everyone working 20% less will have very different effects compared to 20% fewer people working (while the rest continue to work as before).

The former, which is what you are describing, seems positive. However it sounds like this study observed the latter happening.

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

#330

Post by rstupek » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

nennes wrote: post #290

toolz wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

And yet not everyone can agree on what the cause of said gender wage gap truly is. Is it because women take time off to raise children, thus setting back their wage advancement? Is it because women are less likely to be more vigorous in asking for wage increases than men? Or is just because men are keeping women down?