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

Launching the Rural Guaranteed Minimum Income Initiative

blog.codinghorror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: Launching the Rural Guaranteed Minimum Income Initiative

#61

Post by codinghorror »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #16
Sparkle-san wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not rural Americans? When helping someone in my community, I don't first stop and analyze whether my time/money could be better allocated to maximize some sort of utilitarian loss function, I help them because they're there, need my help, and I'm able to help.

It gives me serious "steal from the poor and give to the rich" vibes. Rural Americans are richer than the majority of humans, and Stack Overflow was a fairly global website. Rural America also has a government that is fully capable of taking proper care of it's underprivileged; most governments across the world are not.

I strongly recommend you check out the book "$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America". People -- in this country, not in the third world -- are regularly selling their blood so they can afford to eat. https://www.google.com/search?q=%242+a+day%3A+living+on+almo...

What difference does it make if the government is "capable" when it's not happening in practice?

A lot of areas in this country resemble the third world more than the rest of America. Don't take it from me. Try the book reference I provided and its citations.

Re: Launching the Rural Guaranteed Minimum Income Initiative

#63

Post by codinghorror »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #2

Why rural Americans? The same amount of cash will go a lot further and likely be more effective in rural areas of other countries. The source of Atwood's wealth (Stack Overflow etc) is global, not American.

"Why rural Americans? The same amount of cash will go a lot further and likely be more effective in rural areas of other countries."

Again, the data goes into an open global repository that DOES help the entire world. We will all learn from it. When our house is currently on fire, I think we should deal with that first.

It's also "yes, and". Gates Foundation (among others) is working on other areas of the world and has vastly more money.

Re: Launching the Rural Guaranteed Minimum Income Initiative

#64

Post by codinghorror »

skybrian wrote: post #28

I’m not sure which parts are supposed to be new since his previous post. [1] I think it’s the website? [2] [1] https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-road-not-taken-is-guarante... [2] https://rgmii.org/

Yes, within 8 months we went from "how do we make systemic change" to actually doing it. This is proof. And the GMI topics are on that dedicated site, not Coding Horror.

Re: Launching the Rural Guaranteed Minimum Income Initiative

#65

Post by codinghorror »

ranprieur wrote: post #19

This is better than nothing, but the big advantage of the UBI is that there is no bureaucracy deciding who gets it and doesn't get it. If there are any conditions on the income, then there's a constant danger that the program will become another tool of control.

with GMI the conditions are very simple math: what percent of the poverty line are you within?

I agree that adding a lot of conditions is part of the problem, but "help those who most need it first" seems like a very logical primary (and perhaps only) condition.

Re: Launching the Rural Guaranteed Minimum Income Initiative

#66

Post by codinghorror »

bombcar wrote: post #52
ranprieur wrote: post #19

This is better than nothing, but the big advantage of the UBI is that there is no bureaucracy deciding who gets it and doesn't get it. If there are any conditions on the income, then there's a constant danger that the program will become another tool of control.

If you have a requirement that the UBI be for citizens only, or for residents only, you've already introduced bureaucracy. (Amusingly enough the earned income credit is NOT GMI but it kind of almost is in some cases ...)

The EIC connection is covered in the history pages, which are fascinating in my opinion: https://rgmii.org/history-of-gmi/

As for a "does this person actually live in this area" criteria, I have a hard time seeing that single thing alone as "bureaucracy" -- it's quite common.

Re: Launching the Rural Guaranteed Minimum Income Initiative

#67

Post by dragonwriter »

bombcar wrote: post #52
ranprieur wrote: post #19

This is better than nothing, but the big advantage of the UBI is that there is no bureaucracy deciding who gets it and doesn't get it. If there are any conditions on the income, then there's a constant danger that the program will become another tool of control.

If you have a requirement that the UBI be for citizens only, or for residents only, you've already introduced bureaucracy. (Amusingly enough the earned income credit is NOT GMI but it kind of almost is in some cases ...)

The EITC was inspired by advocacy for a Negative Income Tax (which is generally isomorphic to UBI funded by income taxes, despite coming from the opposite side of the political spectrum.) But the designers couldn't avoid giving in to all the same problems with means-tested welfare that both UBI and NIT seek to eliminate, except or the separate eligibility bureaucracy, which integrating it into the income tax system avoided.

Of course, a GMI also differs from a UBI/NIT because that term generally refers to means-tested welfare with a sharp (usually 1:1 but not >1:1, which sometimes happens with means-tested welfare programs in aggregate in some ranges) cliff at starting at $0 in outside income up to the level of the minimum guarantee, whereas UBI/NIT benefits have a (usually much) <1:1 clawback via the tax system.

Re: Launching the Rural Guaranteed Minimum Income Initiative

#68

Post by dragonwriter »

ranprieur wrote: post #19

This is better than nothing, but the big advantage of the UBI is that there is no bureaucracy deciding who gets it and doesn't get it. If there are any conditions on the income, then there's a constant danger that the program will become another tool of control.

As a contrast to means-tested welfare the U in UBI (whether “Universal” or “Unconditional”) generally is refers to the absence of means- and behavior-testing, it generally does not actually mean that there is no defined scope of eligibility (usually citizens or legal residents of a particular polity, possibly also with an age floor.)

Re: Launching the Rural Guaranteed Minimum Income Initiative

#69

Post by codinghorror »

hmry wrote: post #54
renewiltord wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose the difference is that we have a means-tested program which the wagies can fall into. Was the proposal to have a UBI with a means-tested program behind it? I thought most UBI proponents count on turning off the means-tested program in order to fund the UBI program. At $1k/month for 340m people, we will double social welfare spending per capita if we don't turn off the existing programs. That will put the US…

Hmm, means-tested program behind UBI would mean you get more money if UBI is not enough, right? I have heard some arguments in favor of that, for example for disabled people. You are right that those programs need to be a lot smaller and simpler to be worth the bureaucracy. But I doubt "I spent it all on prostitutes" would qualify you for that. Other UBI advocates don't want any additional program like that. I think…

I'd like to add that I feel quite strongly "Universal" and "Basic" are hugely probematic words. You end up with massive digressions immediately.. case in point.. look at this AMA for proof:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1onb5y8/can_guarantee...

How much of that MASSIVE SET OF DIGRESSIONS (which Neil handled like a gentleman, because he's a truly nice person) could have been avoided by not using "universal" (like, every atom in the universe? every person in the world? every mammal in this country) and "basic" (what is basic, even?) ..

Re: Launching the Rural Guaranteed Minimum Income Initiative

#70

Post by codinghorror »

hirpslop wrote: post #41

American government cash transfers overwhelmingly skew rural with the caveat that income maintenance is a smaller slice of the pie. This report illustrates rural cash transfers beautifully: https://eig.org/great-transfermation/

The largest chunk of federal "cash transfers" is not welfare; it is retirement and disability spending. The rural population is significantly older than the urban population.

Bear in mind that rural poverty rates (~17%) remain persistently higher than urban poverty rates (~12%).

And in a high-wage urban area (e.g., Seattle), a $20,000 Social Security check is a tiny fraction of the local per capita income. In a rural area, that same $20k check represents a much larger slice of the total economic pie. This makes the reliance on government cash appear massive -- ~29% rural and ~17% urban -- even if the absolute dollar difference is more modest.

Also, metro areas receive MASSIVE amounts of federal contracting money (defense, science, universities, federal employees), whereas rural areas get virtually none.

Mostly this is caused by the "graying" of rural America and the persistent lack of high-wage employment in rural areas.

Post reply on HN