Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moving Forward on Basic Income

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 1001 posts

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#61

Post by kauffj »

mempko wrote: post #52
kauffj wrote: post #34

Unfortunately, the explanation most consistent with data on happiness/satisfaction is that the primary utility gain from wealth is derived from gains in zero-sum social status. We can tell this even from the language of the post itself: "everyone should have enough money to meet their basic needs." Basic needs? Everyone in America has their basic needs. Almost all of the _basic_ needs of a human, i.e. those that we r…

> those that we received 50,000 years ago, could be provided for $1-$2k a year. Dignity is probably a basic need that $1-2k can't buy.

Exactly. Hence the 'almost', at the beginning of the sentence you quoted.

My point is we should acknowledge that the drive for basic income is driven by "people don't feel so great when other people have more significantly more shiny things than they do; people feel better when shiny things are more evenly distributed" and not "shiny things are a human right" or "it's an affront to human dignity that shiny things aren't distributed the way I find most preferable".

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#62

Post by acgourley »

kauffj wrote: post #34

Unfortunately, the explanation most consistent with data on happiness/satisfaction is that the primary utility gain from wealth is derived from gains in zero-sum social status. We can tell this even from the language of the post itself: "everyone should have enough money to meet their basic needs." Basic needs? Everyone in America has their basic needs. Almost all of the _basic_ needs of a human, i.e. those that we r…

If what you are saying is that a large part of happiness is related to your distance to the mean wealth, wouldn't you say a society with a 'normal' wealth distribution is going to be on average happier than a society with a 'bimodal' distribution? The technologist view is that automation is taking us in an increasingly bimodal direction, and that BI can "raise the floor" to pinch the two humps closer together. That doesn't seem zero sum to me - because the function relating happiness to distance-from-mean isn't a linear one.

Distribution types for reference: http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/data-collection-analysis-...

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#63

Post by mikeash »

xienze wrote: post #60

So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…

What do we do now when people blow their Social Security or welfare check and can't afford rent or food?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#64

Post by xienze »

jannotti wrote: post #41
xienze wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in other words, a long enough time to make people think they can draw reasonable conclusions about the viability of BI, when in actuality it's not long enough. You have to study the generational effects of this sort of thing. People are going to behave very differently when they know this will be around for a very short time versus the rest of their lives, nevermind how people behave when they're second or third g…

That's certainly an issue, but your demand stifles any effort to learn more by saying that you have to study "generational effects" (what, maybe a 50 year study before you can learn anything). Which will just be followed up by the equally valid criticism that you can only study this if everyone has BI (to see if it's the relative effect that matters). Reasonable seeming concerns, but you have to start somewhere to le…

> That's certainly an issue, but your demand stifles any effort to learn more by saying that you have to study "generational effects" (what, maybe a 50 year study before you can learn anything).

It's less costly than rushing into BI. It's one of those social programs that once introduced can NEVER be taken away.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#65

Post by justratsinacoat »

yanilkr wrote: post #51
justratsinacoat wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presume your strong, proud, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps oneliner throwaway comment was well thought out, so perhaps you could shed some light on the interesting artistic choice of failing to put a space between "find" and "out"?

Look at your self righteous attitude. Maybe you should grow some tolerance for alternative ideas and thoughts. There are many of us who are skeptical about the idea and would like to see how it goes.

>Maybe you should grow some tolerance for alternative ideas and thoughts

Yes! Exactly! That's just what I wanted you to do! And you even elaborated a bit! A nasty throwaway line like yours about how it's obviously going to fail does not telegraph that you're "skeptical about the idea and would like to see how it goes" -- quite the opposite. You've already determined that the study will fail, and that's the conclusion you're interested in seeing. Think I'm wrong? How could I have reasonably concluded otherwise based on "[o]r moving backwards, the study will findout"?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#67

Post by colinplamondon »

xienze wrote: post #60

So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…

Personally, I'd hope the system would absolutely tell them "tough shit". There's got to be a line where the safety net gives out, because someone is too expensive to help.

That's where family and charity hopefully take over.

At the same time, I think your instinct is right, and it's something I've never heard mentioned before. It's almost inevitably that there'll then be the "food security" fund, and the "housing guarantee" fund.... and then we've just recreated the existing system.

That's the best argument against BI I've heard, and one I'd love to hear rebuttals to.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#68

Post by glenjamin »

mikeash wrote: post #63
xienze wrote: post #60

So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…

What do we do now when people blow their Social Security or welfare check and can't afford rent or food?

Programmes like this: https://www.gov.uk/budgeting-help-benefits/how-it-works

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#69

Post by eanzenberg »

xienze wrote: post #60

So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…

This literally is why food stamps exist. So people on food stamps can only buy food and not lottery tickets.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#70

Post by powera »

moheeb wrote: post #58
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #15

"One reason we think it may work is that technological improvements should generate an abundance of resources." This is already being seen in some contexts. For example, the portion of income Americans spend on food has dropped from 17.5% to 10.5% over the last 53 years. "Because of the overall rise in income, and the consistent shrinking of food prices adjusted for inflation, we actually have more disposable income…

All the figures I have seen have pointed to large increases in food prices. Where are they getting their figures that food prices have dropped?

Where are you getting figures that food prices have increased as a percentage of total income? I've only seen that they've decreased, and GP post gave a link supporting his position.
Post reply on HN