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

571–580 of 669 posts

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#571

Post by qqqwerty »

CTDOCodebases wrote: post #394
qqqwerty wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good points. I think NIT would cause some inflation though as the cost for some things is related to the geography so kind of like what we saw with the pandemic some people would change location so they could afford a better lifestyle and end up driving up the prices of things in other locations. But maybe then they could base the amount on wherever someone is a resident however I’m sure this would be gamed. Maybe a…

I think a major feature of a UBI/NIT would be to make it entirely location independent. There are tons of areas in our country that are economically depressed, largely due to a lack of jobs. These areas typically have low cost of living, so someone on UBI would be able to live a lot more comfortably there than they would in a high cost job center.

And this in turn would provide some monetary inflows into those areas that could help revitalize them. A lot of these areas are occupied by seniors living off of social security. An influx of younger folks with UBI checks would help balance things a bit better.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#572

Post by hansworst »

constantcrying wrote: post #543
gopher_space wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe the real victims are the people who have to work full time and are suffering from the increased cost of living? If this was a genuine concern there wouldn't be so many people skimming off the top of every nation on the planet. We're surrounded by parasites and you're picking on people running calorie deficits for some reason.

>If this was a genuine concern there wouldn't be so many people skimming off the top of every nation on the planet. We're surrounded by parasites and you're picking on people running calorie deficits for some reason. Wrong. The only way to go hungry here in Germany is by choice. The people "skimming off the top" are not the ones paying millions upon millions in taxes. It is those who are to lazy to work, because they…

> because they and their family get enough Bürgergeld, that actually working would lower their income

This means it’s not UBI, and that’s kind of the whole point here. With UBI this welfare cliff wouldn’t exist; if you work, you still raise your income. That means, unlike the current German system, UBI still incentivises people to work to increase their income/wealth.

Of course actively disincentivising people to work will cause them to not work. That’s just rational behaviour, you cannot blame anyone for that.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#573

Post by Dylan16807 »

jewayne wrote: post #565
Dylan16807 wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This particular method is mathematically equivalent to both of them. There's no actual difference between "You get full UBI and you pay income tax on other income" and "You get X cents less UBI per dollar of other income". The system could be as simple as "UBI, also income tax is 50%, end of description".

The question isn't about mathematics, it's about psychology and politics. In the second scenario, when do I get/spend my UBI money?

> The question isn't about mathematics, it's about psychology and politics.

That's valid, but when someone's roughly describing a plan I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and worry about whether it can be framed the correct way rather than whether they framed it right.

> In the second scenario, when do I get/spend my UBI money?

I don't know, every two weeks? So it's the difference between a $460 UBI check and a $400 paycheck, versus a $60 UBI check and an $800 paycheck.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#574

Post by s1artibartfast »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #514
s1artibartfast wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re your edit: I think we are discussing different magnitudes of Ubi. I would consider leaving a 200k job for 40k Ubi (which I think is a number more in line with what people describe. First off, my 200k salary would be taxed into effectively a 100k salary. I could live pretty well off 40k if I never had to work, so quitting my job would be a quality of life upgrade. I think a lot of my peers would consider the same.

I think 40k is way more than most UBI proponents are aiming for. It's certainly 3 times as much as I have bean mentally considering in UBI discussions. When I think UBI, I think paying for a shared living space and food. A minimum budget, not necessarily a comfortable budget.

Ps, the people want Ubi as a replacement to means tested welfare and Social Services, consider what level of Ubi would be required for an unemployed or disabled mother of two

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#575

Post by s1artibartfast »

Spivak wrote: post #570
s1artibartfast wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> I question if it is as bad as you think it is I don't actually think it's that bad but I was trying to steelman your argument. The hypothetical presumes a terrible job with not enough pay to make up for it. The kind of job that someone would only take if they had not better option. If the job isn't that bad, or it pays well enough I think people will take it despite not needing it to make rent. > you do it if your…

I dont think that UBI could or would ever be implemented in a tax neutral way, so that is a pretty huge difference right there.

>I'm not really sure how to answer the retirement question because under this system I can't "just retire" because my lifestyle wouldn't permit it.

another way to frame this is how much (if any) of your income would you be willing to give up if it meant 0 work hours. Would you take a 10k pay cut? 50k? or are you completely inflexible when it comes to lifestyle spending, or alternatively, do you like your job enough that you would do it for free.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#576

Post by s1artibartfast »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #558
s1artibartfast wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day, I have fun I don't think you are 60k number is right, or your 12K number is sufficient to cover all of the cost of living a comfortable life. This is fundamental to the difference. I think the desired level of Ubi is on par if not higher than the average American Income. This leads to the 100% redistribution claim. It is very simple. If we assume the average income is 60k, urinalysis is still w…

I meant to say income tax increase of 0-10% for 60k-120k. That's why I said break even at 60k. Sorry for the confusion. > I think the desired level of Ubi is on par if not higher than the average American Income. This leads to the 100% redistribution claim. It is very simple. You think the "desired level of UBI" is more than the median income? You're talking to caricatures and fools, not real advocates. And you shoul…

I think most advocates sell UBI as a replacement for welfare and enough that people would feel "comfortable" quitting jobs they don't like, or support the disabled.

Top post for this thread mocks 12K as a negligible handout, and claims UBI has never been tried.

Let me ask you what level of UBI would support a disabled mother of two that cant work?

What level of UBI would allow a construction worker to quit their job and go back to engineering school?

These are exactly the types of things advocates claim UBI would solve (along with poverty and crime).

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#577

Post by s1artibartfast »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #513
s1artibartfast wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real GDP per capita has gone from 41k to 67k, so going back to 1994 could actually be done with a 3 day work week. Most people wouldn't want to because they would have to cut 40% of their spending across the board. there are a lot of people today that can already have the option to work less for less money but dont choose to do it.

Okay. Well "they would decline" is pretty far from fighting tooth and nail.

This whole thing could be brought about by a law banning work over 3 days a week.

I think people would fight tooth and nail.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#578

Post by Dylan16807 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #576
Dylan16807 wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant to say income tax increase of 0-10% for 60k-120k. That's why I said break even at 60k. Sorry for the confusion. > I think the desired level of Ubi is on par if not higher than the average American Income. This leads to the 100% redistribution claim. It is very simple. You think the "desired level of UBI" is more than the median income? You're talking to caricatures and fools, not real advocates. And you shoul…

I think most advocates sell UBI as a replacement for welfare and enough that people would feel "comfortable" quitting jobs they don't like, or support the disabled. Top post for this thread mocks 12K as a negligible handout, and claims UBI has never been tried. Let me ask you what level of UBI would support a disabled mother of two that cant work? What level of UBI would allow a construction worker to quit their job…

> Top post for this thread mocks 12K as a negligible handout, and claims UBI has never been tried.

Top post says it's not enough to quit their jobs (and keep the same lifestyle, presumably) or to get a "nice" apartment. That doesn't make it negligible.

And the claim of never really trying is also true, these tests tend to be small and pick random people out of a big crowd.

> Let me ask you what level of UBI would support a disabled mother of two that cant work?

That depends on whether the children are getting UBI, or whether there is a separate program for poor children. But UBI for the mother alone should not be expected to pay for that situation.

> What level of UBI would allow a construction worker to quit their job and go back to engineering school?

Well we don't fix tuition prices through UBI. Or the housing crisis.

But let's see. 20 years ago, adjusted for inflation, you could easily get a dorm bed for $4000 per school year at a big school. (Yes I know that doesn't cover the entire year.) So if we can just do that again, and charge a reasonable tuition (my local college is about $2500 per year right now and that number would be fine) then $12k of UBI would let someone go to school.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#579

Post by rytor718 »

sensanaty wrote: post #388
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…

The only reason I work is because I have to. I hate nothing more than the daily bullshit meetings and sprint reviews and all that other useless life-sucking crap. And I have it good, most people don't have the privilege of complaining from an AC'd home office while they tap away at a keyboard. No, most people work because that's the only way they get food on the table and survive, not because of some hilariously out…

Agreed and what you say is true for many, if not most workers. I think this brings up something we're all a bit reluctant to add to this conversation about UBI: the reason to do it at all.

As practiced, capitalism is just high stakes musical chairs. Everyone, rich and poor, works fervently to ensure they aren't the last ones standing with no chair. UBI asks: what if everyone always has a chair?

Its a very unsettling question, one can almost hear the record scratch when its posed. So unsettling, we start asking who deserves a chair!

And suddenly we're not talking about capitalism OR UBI at all. This is something else entirely: class. The allegedly unwashed lazy hordes versus the Ultra Clean Society of the Diamond Shower Faucets.

The primary incentive for anyone to work (as we understand the term today), is to maintain food and shelter above all else. That's it. Proponents of UBI want everyone to have food and shelter, be less of a slave. Opponents worry about whether we can afford to give everyone a chair.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#580

Post by anon291 »

qqqwerty wrote: post #366
anon291 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

You don't need anything to implement any policy. You just need someone with power to implement it. There's multiple ways of doing that. One way is to do so democratically, in which case you need to convince the population to vote for you. This can be done through religious means (I.e., appeals to a greater authority or set of morals) or -- ignoring metaphysical concerns -- evidentiary means (i.e., appeals to science and studies). The authors of this study are clearly trying to do the latter, because they want to convince you to vote for these policies.

The other way to implement it is to stage a coup, gain power by sheer force, and implement it that way.

In either case, you don't need an academic study.

> Money might not grow on trees, but it quite literally exists as 1's and 0's in some database.

Except money does grow on trees (and in supernovae and a few other places). Money is not a number in a database is a unit of net work owed by someone else to you. No work can be accomplished without sunlight and trees.

Money has to come from somewhere, because there's only so much work being done.

Highly recommend Debt: the first 5000 years by Graeber if you're confused.

Post reply on HN