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

501–510 of 669 posts

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#501

Post by s1artibartfast »

Spivak wrote: post #478
s1artibartfast wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that is a very realistic jump. Most people are not facing that binary. Would you work 40 hours a week at McDonald's for an extra $20k/year if all your basic needs are met? OR at that point, would you say screw it and spend your days hiking, reading, and laughing with friends?

I think the "at that point" is the crucial element. An extra 20k to work a physically and mentally taxing job for inconsistent hours, no benefits, and no flexibility -- the calculus is garbage. But would I continue working my SWE job for my current salary, easily. If we're having to say that the only reason someone ever would work a specific job is because it's an alternative to homelessness then that's on the job at…

>If we're having to say that the only reason someone ever would work a specific job is because it's an alternative to homelessness then that's on the job at that point.

I think that is a major motivation for most work and I question if it is as bad as you think it is? Is it really that unreasonable that someone do something they don't like to get shelter, food, and healthcare?

>But would I continue working my SWE job for my current salary, easily.

Would you do it if your take home income was reduced by 50% to pay other people who choose not to work?

How small would the difference between working full time and full retirement have to be before you considered it?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#502

Post by s1artibartfast »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #363
s1artibartfast wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 differenc…

do you know that Gross National Income has nothing to do with average individual income?

If you are taking that as your baseline, you have already nationalized every industry and productive asset in the country.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#503

Post by azemetre »

WheatMillington wrote: post #307
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…

You haven't met enough deadbeats in your life. Trust me, there's a virtually limitless number of them, and they very much do not want to work.

You need to provide hard numbers because welfare fraud is typically less than single digits. Going by “vibes” is pretty useless, especially since the government has been the largest force in reducing poverty in western nations.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#505

Post by Djvacto »

syockit wrote: post #430
altruios wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be mistaken about the ratio of the average person's needs/abilities... a probing question is: do we really need telemarketers to continue to exist (just so people have jobs... and that's better that people receive unwanted calls... because?)? Greed is greed and shouldn't be rewarded. I otherwise basically agree with you... just that most people are basically able and society doesn't need to do thing…

Telemarketers are not subsidized. If there is no return on investment for employing them, companies won't employ them at all.

But the companies use of telemarketers isn't a net benefit to society. If the company instead spent on product quality, warranty services, employee benefits, or charity, we'd see more of a net-positive impact on the world around us. Generally, companies spending money competing for market share through advertising only benefits specific parties, and only financially.

The goals and incentives (for companies) aren't currently aligned with our needs & problems (as a society). So a lot of resources get spent on things like advertising, that (in theory) could instead be spent on solving problems related to housing, healthcare, infrastructure, if the incentives existed or the goals were set differently.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#506

Post by layer8 »

schroeding wrote: post #494
nkmnz wrote: post #460

The problem with this kind of test is that the people still live in a society where cheap labor is available to the companies around them that provide them with all the goods and services that they like to purchase with those $1000 (or whatever free amount they've gotten). Germany shifted to a system that is as close to a basic income as you can currently imagine. There are some strings attached, but considerably les…

While there are areas where the "Fachkräftemangel" (lack of skilled laborers) is actually real, the problem for gastronomy is the minimum wage, which is ~12 Euros. Why choose being a service worker or part of the kitchen brigade in (especially small) gastronomy (where, often, all you get is only slightly above minimum wage), if there are other, easier choices which pay basically the same? As someone who was service s…

> Why choose being a service worker in gastronomy

The tipping money often exceeds the wage, from what I hear.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#507

Post by yunwal »

dbrueck wrote: post #294
karmajunkie wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just curious, but why is there always an implicit assumption in this debate that we only tax the wealth of billionaires? is the money of a half billionaire somehow less green than a full billionaire?

I don't think that's the case. Instead, it's just that the "let's tax the rich people more!!" idea is ill-founded to begin with, and the easiest way to show that is to point out that if instead of just taking some percentage more, you took everything they have, it still wouldn't solve the problem, not by a longshot.

Choosing some arbitrarily small segment of the population and saying "See, they don't have enough money to fund this program" is not the steelman you seem to think it is. Instead, try discussing something serious, like a plausible adjustment to the progressive tax system.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#508

Post by abeppu »

layer8 wrote: post #506
schroeding wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there are areas where the "Fachkräftemangel" (lack of skilled laborers) is actually real, the problem for gastronomy is the minimum wage, which is ~12 Euros. Why choose being a service worker or part of the kitchen brigade in (especially small) gastronomy (where, often, all you get is only slightly above minimum wage), if there are other, easier choices which pay basically the same? As someone who was service s…

> Why choose being a service worker in gastronomy The tipping money often exceeds the wage, from what I hear.

Is this true in Germany? As an American, I was always of the impression that in continental Europe, tips were as a rule a much smaller part of compensation.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#509

Post by Dylan16807 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #502
Dylan16807 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 differenc…

do you know that Gross National Income has nothing to do with average individual income? If you are taking that as your baseline, you have already nationalized every industry and productive asset in the country.

Income taxes wouldn't need to-- nevermind.

Okay. Please stop nitpicking and either defend your claim about "100% socialization of income" or admit you were wrong.

Sorry for saying irrelevant words, I will try to minimize them.

A flat tax increase of 20% of income minus 12k would be far from ideal, but anyone making less than 60k would have less taxes, anyone making 60k-120k would have a 0-10% of income increase, and super high cost of living places could use different numbers.

The exact details don't matter because I only made that scenario to prove your claim wrong. Because it's wrong.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#510

Post by Dylan16807 »

smileysteve wrote: post #487
Dylan16807 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> facilitate an effective 7.5% pay cut (employer paid Social Security / Medicare / Medicaid tax) The employer skipping out on taxes is not a "pay cut". And the employee also gets to skip out on taxes.

The employee, under current laws, does not get to skip out on taxes; they have to pay the self employment tax rate of 15%; We're talking about 40 hour weeks, that kind of regular pay doesn't go un noticed by revenue offices. Yes, the employee must file and pay taxes, even if they've reported their employer to the IRS for mis-classification.

Then they're not a shadow worker at that point. The comment was about shadow workers.
Post reply on HN