A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by JustSomeNobody » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:00 PM UTC

TisButMe wrote: post #44

hueving wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>people will spend their time working on things to improve everyone's life Some people will. I have met many plenty of people though that don't care about other people regardless of their income.

But those people will always be a net negative for society, basic income or not. Empowering those who would make a positive difference if they had enough time/money sounds like a good idea to me.

I think those who are against a basic wage feel the current net negative portion of society would be a greater net negative because not only would they be receiving a wage, but they'd spend it on crap and society would still have to take care of them (hospital bills, food, etc).

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

#382

Post by ghaff » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:01 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #335

chi-sq wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAE and would like to hear an expert's answer as well. But as far as I can see, the demand for basic food and shelter is not elastic, people need roof and bread always. And the capital is mostly reallocated from existing subsidies, not created. With UBI, prices for non-essential goods and services would maybe increase a little, and there would be a revolution in employment market, but my guess is that potatoes and…

I think basic income is a bad idea, but if you liberated people from seeking jobs, many of them wouldn't live in overcrowded cities. If rent is too high in the bay area, you'd go live in Madison, Wisconsin. Or in a pre-fab house in the middle of nowhere.

In the context of a thought experiment, where people would live is an interesting question. There are certainly many places today that are inexpensive in no small part because there are few jobs. It doesn't have to be in the middle of nowhere. Detroit qualifies too. On the other hand, moving somewhere cheaper would imply moving away from existing family and social support structures.

However, I suspect a lot of the people who are championing basic income are implicitly envisioning living in a relatively comfortable apartment in the Bay area from which they can follow their muse--not public housing in Detroit.

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

#383

Post by s73v3r » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:02 PM UTC

jlarocco wrote: post #6

ryan-allen wrote: post #2

I wonder how much you'd need to save and to own in order to conduct this experiment on yourself? I've wondered about what I would do day to day if I didn't 'have to work to live'. I honestly think I'd be doing very similar things. I'd still be programming, and I'd be wanting to make things that'd help people do their jobs better, but I wouldn't feel like I 'had to'. That alone would improve my sanity immensely (I thi…

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…

You don't think they have hobbies and interests?

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

#384

Post by Chinjut » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:02 PM UTC

cmdkeen wrote: post #374

macspoofing wrote: post #364

The more I think about it, the more I really like the idea of a basic income. One of the great things about universal healthcare is that you just never worry about it. I never have to think about what would happen to myself or my spouse or my kids if they get cancer after I quit or lose my job. Whether my insurance will fight me on some treatment, or if it covers the rights things. It's nice. Basic income seems like…

You're describing non contributory Social Security not a basic income. The difference is that those systems usually make everyone but the retired look for work or be in education etc.

Where did the grandparent commenter say anything about "mak[ing] everyone but the retired look for work or be in education etc."? Their comment seems to describe basic income just fine to me.

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

#385

Post by bomaqhbk » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:03 PM UTC

crimsonalucard wrote: post #367

How about a guaranteed job rather then a free paycheck.

The main problems I see with the guaranteed job idea are that it presupposes a judgment about what types of work are inherently valuable (and does so at the cost of exploring the unknown) and it sounds a lot like a life of forced servitude for which the only rational was the original income inequality.

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

#386

Post by cmdkeen » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:04 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #96

anticon wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't mention the fact it's completely unworkable mathematically. In the UK I believe it'd cost £240 billion a year. Where the hell would anyone be able to find that money from? (Tackling tax avoidance from Starbucks isn't a credible answer). Just to put it in context, that's twice the entire NHS's budget, or 5 times our defence spending.

We wouldn't need money for most benefits any more (pensions, income support, etc) so that's about £120bn of the £240bn found immediately. You mention the NHS - we'd be able to spend a lot less on that if people didn't have poverty-induced health problems, so there's another £35bn (assuming a 30% reduction of the £110bn). It's not unreasonable to assume that the difference of £85bn would essentially pay for itself by…

Why would poverty related health problems disappear unless the basic income is significantly higher than the current unemployment or disability benefits as you're saying those are being replaced.

A basic income doesn't remove the potential for poverty.

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

#387

Post by ancap » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:04 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #369

ancap wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for this (and any other form of welfare), provided the funding of such a program is done on a purely voluntary basis.

>provided the funding of such a program is done on a purely voluntary basis. Like taxes right?

If you live in Greece

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

#388

Post by frogpelt » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:04 PM UTC

wooyi wrote: post #321

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…

This assumes everyone is motivated, wants to improve their lives and do well in their jobs or in society.

According to Thomas Sowell, this assumption is at the heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals assume "everyone is motivated, wants to improve their lives and do well in their jobs or in society" given the right system.

Conservatives basically assume the opposite.

I'll let him explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88&feature=youtu.be...

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

#389

Post by TTPrograms » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:06 PM UTC

cmdkeen wrote: post #379

TTPrograms wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation doesn't necessarily follow. If everyone was given a 10% raise then you would get inflation, but a fixed distribution results in a very different effect. One possibility is that people would purchase roughly the same amount with the lower classes having free time to educate themselves rather than working minimum wage jobs. I mean, I can't imagine somebody throwing their lives away just to buy another loaf of…

What incentive do they have to educate themselves? After all they currently had an incentive to educate themselves during their period of compulsory education yet still ended up working in a minimum wage job they value so little they'd quit if they were given a minimum wage. You don't see masses of low waged workers in countries with maximum working hours (and thus some leisure time) educating themselves.

Free education via internet + age/experience + potential for income at a level significantly about basic income.

I don't think comparing how a 15 year old treated mandatory education and how a 25 might treat the opportunity to educate themselves to better their lives is very fair.

I'd assume the maximum working hours in those countries are above 0. When you have to take an hour long bus each way from an exhausting minimum wage job there's not a lot of time to make significant progress in education.

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

#390

Post by FHorse » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:07 PM UTC

vfdva wrote: post #255

FHorse wrote: post #163

Having lived under a communist regime and also in the ghettos of NYC decades ago, I can tell you just how idiotic this is. But I guess there's no shortage of idiotic ideas when you are playing with other people's money.

What was it about living in NYC ghettos that suggests basic income is a bad idea?

Witnessed the total lack of motivation of people to do anything for themselves. It was the result of the policy at the time. When the policy changed, the behavior also changed. BMI provides no incentives for people to do the right thing, which is to work hard to better themselves. Quite the opposite. By removing any requirements, it enables unmotivated people to just sit on their ass. Nor does it discourage antisocial behavior. Just giving people free money doesn't do that in itself. All it does is set up an expectation of free money.

I believe the best way to spend the money is to help people who work hard to improve themselves, regardless of their income level. The money is given according to the impact of the money. So people with low income would benefit proportionally more because the before and after difference is larger percentage wise.

Edit: The thing that should redistributed is not wealth, but opportunity.