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

361–370 of 669 posts

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#361

Post by Qwertious »

whimsicalism wrote: post #195
DemocracyFTW2 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work No. The reason you say that is because you're young and you believe what you've heard. You will soon cease to be the former and then presumably, likely, stop to do the latter. People want to work, they want to be useful. And yes, if I support you but threaten to stop supporting you as soon as you get to work for money—suddenly working for money looks…

i mean this study clearly shows that people work fewer hours and increase leisure time when given money. i don’t think that is a bad thing necessarily but i think we can be relatively confident of the empirical reality of the effect (at least in the short-term) for quantities of money like this?

Are we measuring work by time?

If you code for 100 hours a week, and I code for 40 hours a week, who's working more? We care about the productivity, not the hours worked.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#362

Post by s1artibartfast »

ssl-3 wrote: post #358
s1artibartfast wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who can afford it? It sounds like the expectations are higher than the total funds available. What do you think would be a suitable amount for Ubi?

I can afford it. It will cost me a lot of money because I'm barely on the tall end of that hypothetical situation right now, but I can put my part in. I can afford it because a healthy society is a productive society, and this will return to me because good economies are built largely upon productive societies, and healthy societies are more productive than unhealthy societies are. Productivity generates wealth. Are…

I dont think money and getting ones needs met without work is an incentive for health or productivity. I think it is an incentive for the exact opposite.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#363

Post by Dylan16807 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #359
Dylan16807 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it would take 100% socialization of income to reach that level of UBI I want to see you attempt to do the math to show that. Here's my rough math: Mean income is about $60k. If we take the extra simple option, we can increase all tax brackets by 20% and give everyone a $12k credit, and it trivially balances. The median income increases, the low end of income drastically increases, and higher incomes drop. Such an o…

60k is the average working income, not average adult income or human income. You are also casually applying a 20% hike, which for many people is their entire budget after taxes and housing. My effective rate is already >40%, and you are proposing another 20%. That would mean others are getting more of my salary than I am. 12k seems an absurdity low number to provide universal shelter, Healthcare, food, security, and…

> 60k is the average working income, not average adult income or human income.

It's close enough, that's for 240 million people. If I use Gross National Income I get a much higher number.

I'm not worried about children right this second.

> You are also casually applying a 20% hike, which for many people is their entire budget after taxes and housing.

Another 20%, minus 12 thousand dollars. That makes a big difference.

The median worker would pay significantly less than before.

And I already said progressive would be better. But a flat tax like that is very simple and would not be the end of the world.

> My effective rate is already >40%, and you are proposing another 20%. That would mean others are getting more of my salary than I am.

Are you taking the minus 12k into account? If so it sounds like you're making a lot more than the people you just described that can't find reasonable housing. You'll be fine.

> 12k seems an absurdity low number to provide universal shelter, Healthcare, food, security, and entertainment. My newspapers are full of stories on how 100k/yr isn't a living wage in California

The nice thing about having a guaranteed income is that you actually can move without massive risk.

Or you can adjust it based on location, idk, I'm going with the simple version first. If it only helps most people then that's enough to show the idea has merit. Nitpicking won't work!

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#364

Post by scotty79 »

steelframe wrote: post #128

If you were to hand out $1k a month to everyone in my area an immediate result would likely be that rents would increase by somewhere close to $1k a month. Everyone needs somewhere to live. Everyone wants to live closer to where they work and where there friends and family are. Housing is in limited supply. If everyone had more purchasing power, then everyone's going to collectively bid up what they're willing to pay…

That's why UBI needs to be financed from wealth/property tax.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#365

Post by scotty79 »

karaterobot wrote: post #260
steelframe wrote: post #128

If you were to hand out $1k a month to everyone in my area an immediate result would likely be that rents would increase by somewhere close to $1k a month. Everyone needs somewhere to live. Everyone wants to live closer to where they work and where there friends and family are. Housing is in limited supply. If everyone had more purchasing power, then everyone's going to collectively bid up what they're willing to pay…

This is the basic uncertainty I have about UBI, and I've never heard an argument against it that went step by step and explained how that wouldn't happen. It seems intuitively like it would. In response, I've hear the equivalent of "don't worry, they've thought of that already, and the math still works". Maybe, but I'd feel a lot better if somebody could walk me through it.

> It seems intuitively like it would.

It already happened. Covid cash ended up in the hands of asset owners.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#366

Post by qqqwerty »

anon291 wrote: post #312
mdorazio wrote: post #4

Link to the preliminary study results from OpenResearch: https://www.openresearchlab.org/studies/unconditional-cash-s... Note that this was a time-limited study where participants knew they would only receive money for 3 years. Personally, I feel like this leads to different behaviors than if people believe they will receive the income indefinitely.

This is bordering on an unfalsifiable (hence religious claim). If it's only going to work if the money is in perpetuity and then, when that doesn't work, we require the money is in perpetuity for an individual and his descendants, and then, when that doesn't work, require the money is truly perpetual with no hope to end it, then there becomes no way to determine whether or not the policy works in any meaningful way.

Do we really need academic studies on this topic? When Republicans cut taxes on the rich, it is not like they are making sure they have academic consensus on their side.

We know welfare works. It is pretty simple. People need to eat, they need shelter, and a few other basic necessities. When they fall on hard times, not having those things can make it infinitely harder to get back on their feet.

Our current welfare system is a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare and has a stigma attached to it. The nice thing about UBI is it is universal, and simple. The second your income goes below a threshold, you start getting a little bit of money. The second it goes above, you stop. No fuss, no stigma. They are going to need that money to survive anyway, so might as well just give it to them rather than forcing them to suffer the indignities of poverty.

Public policy is a messy business. But I find it odd that this topic is so controversial as it only took me a few minutes of ruminating on it before realizing how good of an idea it is. Maybe it is because I have had a brief encounter with poverty myself, and ever since my anxieties around finances, access to healthcare, etc.. run deep. Or maybe I just realize that a ton of people were born into poverty and due to no fault of their own are now stuck in it. Money might not grow on trees, but it quite literally exists as 1's and 0's in some database. The fact that we could just flip a few bits and instantly make the lives of so many people better, boggles my mind why we wouldn't try that.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#368

Post by scotty79 »

teractiveodular wrote: post #289

Interesting to see the largest increase in consumption is "beverages". As far as I can see the commentary completely ignores this, but I presume this includes alcohol?

Alcohol is in separate category along with tobacco and marihuana and it spending on it increased the most in the most affluent group.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#369

Post by qqqwerty »

CTDOCodebases wrote: post #178
steelframe wrote: post #128

If you were to hand out $1k a month to everyone in my area an immediate result would likely be that rents would increase by somewhere close to $1k a month. Everyone needs somewhere to live. Everyone wants to live closer to where they work and where there friends and family are. Housing is in limited supply. If everyone had more purchasing power, then everyone's going to collectively bid up what they're willing to pay…

All the studies on UBI are flawed. The whole point of UBI is that everyone gets the money. When you give a select few extra money they can do things that they otherwise wouldn't. When you give everyone money the value of the money just decreases.

Negative income tax (NIT) solves this. At this point, when anyone says UBI, I just substitute NIT in my head. It is really the only practical implementation of a UBI scheme.

Further, if a UBI-like program is funded with new taxes (or cuts to existing programs), it should have a negligible impact on inflation. It is only when you do deficit spending that you risk inflation.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#370

Post by amadeuspagel »

steelframe wrote: post #128

If you were to hand out $1k a month to everyone in my area an immediate result would likely be that rents would increase by somewhere close to $1k a month. Everyone needs somewhere to live. Everyone wants to live closer to where they work and where there friends and family are. Housing is in limited supply. If everyone had more purchasing power, then everyone's going to collectively bid up what they're willing to pay…

If you were to hand out $1k per month to everyone in a country that has vacant housing in places where there are no jobs, some people would move to and revitalize these places.
Post reply on HN