Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available • Hacker News Board

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#41

Post by rbanffy » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 6:27 PM UTC

thesz wrote: post #17

superfrank wrote: post #14

I'm not sure how to address this, but I always wonder how much we can extrapolate the findings from these studies to a universal basic income situation. I feel like giving a small group of people an extra $12000 a year provides benefits for low income people because their yearly income is now higher compared to the median income. Someone who's income is in the 5th percentile may now be in the 10th or 15th percentile…

With a progressive taxation, the gap between high and low income narrows. Low income people may not even notice a change in tax bracket, if any such thing happen, high income people will give back a substantial part of that additional income. I believe, up to 50+% in some US states. This may slightly change median, I think.

It's also worthwhile to reduce taxation at the lowest end, as long as the extra taxes are used to provide basic human rights such as universal and comprehensive healthcare.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#42

Post by abeppu » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 6:27 PM UTC

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…

> It's not enough for a real tuition or to support them to study instead of work.

... should it be? Or should you have to save some of your basic income for a period to go to school?

If every year you got enough to live off and to be an enrolled student, I think the temptation to just be a perpetual student might be really attractive to some individuals, and not really valuable to society. Even from the yardstick of "how much do you learn", I think it's important to follow formal education with meaningful periods of trying to usefully apply what you've learned to real needs.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#43

Post by jacksnipe » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 6:27 PM UTC

MattGrommes wrote: post #25

joe_the_user wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Exactly. If I have to have 3 jobs, then with this money I "only" work 2 jobs, I'm working less but almost certainly have a better quality of life.

Yeah and what’s more you’re contributing more to society, whether or not you can measure it in money. You have some spare time and energy to help your family, your neighbors, the person you see once a week.

I want to live in a society where people have time to actually live.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#44

Post by wolpoli » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 6:28 PM UTC

MattGrommes wrote: post #25

joe_the_user wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Exactly. If I have to have 3 jobs, then with this money I "only" work 2 jobs, I'm working less but almost certainly have a better quality of life.

Yup. Individuals want to optimize for quality of life but the decisionmakers are optimizing for household income (or perhaps GDP).

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#45

Post by pjerem » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 6:28 PM UTC

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…

> One result they are missing out is that the income actually reduced overall employment compared to the control group

That’s not something negative or even a surprise. Of all the people on this planet, why do you think Altman payed its with its own money for this study ? That’s the goal of universal income : allowing people to work less because there is/will be less work to do.

As for decreasing household earnings, I’m not even surprised : most people would accept a decrease in income in exchange of the certainty of the income. You don’t need to save a lot if your income is guaranteed.

It’s not even a bad thing because as we can see in the results, global expenditures increased. One interpretation could be that people felt like they needed less money but that they also spent more. Overall it feels like a net positive for the economy.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#46

Post by bko » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 6:28 PM UTC

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…

Why is the goal to get people to quit their jobs and get a nice apartment?

Isn't it supposed to be a minimum base level of support? Why do we keep moving the goal posts?

And if everyone quits their job and lives in a nice apartment, where is this money going to come from? The problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work. Start working, you lose your transfer payments. A lot of people are stuck in this trap and don't want to start working, forsaking valuable on the job training and socialization that will hurt them in the long run. That's where universal part comes in

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#47

Post by theLiminator » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 6:29 PM UTC

superfrank wrote: post #14

I'm not sure how to address this, but I always wonder how much we can extrapolate the findings from these studies to a universal basic income situation. I feel like giving a small group of people an extra $12000 a year provides benefits for low income people because their yearly income is now higher compared to the median income. Someone who's income is in the 5th percentile may now be in the 10th or 15th percentile…

> I'm concerned about a situation similar to college tuition in the US where easy, risk free money leads to price gouging. Once everyone has an extra $XXXXX how quickly does the market realize that the cost of goods can be raised by that amount.

Yeah, I'm convinced state backed student loans has led to the crazy rise in college tuition. student loans should be private (but should 100% be dischargeable via bankruptcy). Alternatively, public institutions shouldn't charge for tuition. The current state makes absolutely no sense.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#48

Post by brotchie » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 6:29 PM UTC

UBI really makes me think of AI-safety-world i-risk. i.e. Ikigai risk (feeling like you have a meaningful purpose in life).

   Ikigai, or purpose, is a Japanese concept dating back to the Heian period in Japan. The Japanese word “iki” translates to life. Additionally, the “gai” portion of the word comes from the word “kai” meaning shell.

Beyond basic needs, Homo Sapiens in their current incarnation need some kind of meaning or purpose in life. Some folks can find this internally, other folks need to operate in an externally imposed value-structure to have meaning.

I'm not sure that UBI actually addresses this, and may be counter productive.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#49

Post by williamcotton » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 6:29 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #35

beejiu wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Really?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#50

Post by awesomeMilou » Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 6:29 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #37

joe_the_user wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A significant proportion that is not the majority? I think the vibe about UBI was always "people will work less and employers will have stricter competition when hiring employees".