Live data from Hacker News

Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

openresearchlab.org

71–80 of 669 posts

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#71

The UBI folks were cursed by the pandemic and inflation. You cannot deal with that confounder. They’re not the only ones. Remember Green New Deal? That also evaporated with the end of ZIRP. You can complain relentlessly about these guys, or offer alternative solution with nothing but vibes to vouch for them. The truth is, as long as interest rates are high, the economic contraction is making everyone too scared to tr…

> The UBI folks were cursed by the pandemic and inflation. You cannot deal with that confounder.

The study had a control group, who also experienced pandemic & inflation.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#72
post #64
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add value to society?

Why is value needed? How much of it is sufficient for society to function? Yes, it IS a provocation. Let's go deeper into this question.

Value production is needed, because the value we produce is fleeting and healthy societies grow.

How much value is needed is determined by the society through a free market.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#73
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because until we have unlimited robots with AGI, stuff needs to get done for the society to function. Growing food, building stuff, delivering stuff, fixing/maintaining stuff, etc.

I appreciate the honest answer to what was a bit of a provocation. Can we assume a fraction of people would still be doing these relevant things and that it'd be enough to maintain a functioning society? If not, wouldn't that point towards the directions we need technology to evolve? Would paying more to the people who now don't need to work, but are willing to, suffice? One thing I would bet on is that, in that scen…

Cards on the table: I think the vast majory of people would do less, and perhaps very little socially productive work without the current financial incentives.

> Would paying more to the people who now don't need to work, but are willing to, suffice?

This is not possible because you cant simultaneously pay workers more (as a whole) and have them subsidize the non-working.

I admit it may be possible to reallocate compensation among the workers so that some get more, while collectively they get less.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#75
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.

> in my mind 'basic' doesn't translate to quitting your job and not working In society A, machines and clean energy allow the population to work an average of 20 hours a week. Some, even many people choose not to work at all, but still get access to a basic apartment and have their basic food, social and education, etc, needs met. In society B, machines and dirty energy allow a tiny segment of the population to live…

Doesn't seem like a realistic concern given the current state of economies and the need for human labor.

Why are people in society B concerned with the majority working if they are unnecessary?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#76
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People in a functioning society still have to work Why?

Because until we have unlimited robots with AGI, stuff needs to get done for the society to function. Growing food, building stuff, delivering stuff, fixing/maintaining stuff, etc.

Which of those jobs do the people in this thread have? Are they doing anything for the society to function? Does the income level reflect that?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#77
I'm dumb and have no real education in economics.

But even my dumb self makes the correlation that in 2020/2021, we handed out free money to keep people afloat (a very good thing), and then immediately following there was a surge in inflation.

So I guess I don't understand, how do you give out free money without devaluing the currency? Am I making an incorrect correlation between the stimulus checks and the subsequent inflation? Again, I don't know anything about this topic and I think the stimulus checks were a good idea that kept a lot of people afloat, but was that not the cause of the subsequent inflation?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#78
post #72
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is value needed? How much of it is sufficient for society to function? Yes, it IS a provocation. Let's go deeper into this question.

Value production is needed, because the value we produce is fleeting and healthy societies grow. How much value is needed is determined by the society through a free market.

How much value can a disabled veteran provide to the free market? If that value is zero, should they just lay down and die?

What if they're not a veteran, but just an unfortunate soul with a disability that provides "zero" value?

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#79
post #46
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 thi…

Back in my college speech class, a woman gave a presentation basically supporting the "welfare today is a disincentive to work" myth, with emphasis on "today" (or current), while totally destroying the notion that welfare recipients don't "want" to work. She was a stay-at-home mom with 2 kids, her husband commit suicide after serving in Iraq and then being pushed out of the military (this was the 90s when the US military was actively drawing down). She basically said that the current welfare system (in the 90s, in California) didn't allow a way to slowly move off welfare. She said she had many offers for part-time work, and work that didn't earn a lot of money, but both had potential for her to eventually be promoted to full-time or to make more money than welfare paid her. But she said there was no way to do this: welfare was either all or nothing. But most of all, she dispelled the myth that she was some sort of leech that didn't want to work. She wanted to work, but the welfare system didn't allow it.

Your comment didn't necessarily imply it, but a lot of the discourse these days tries to imply (or directly claims) that recipients are the problem, they're a bunch of lazy bums that don't want to contribute. That's just not true.

Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

#80
post #45

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,…

is/will there be less to do?

in the future, maybe so, but decreasing employment is surely bad during a labor shortage: you do need workers for a functioning, productive economy.

the rise in buying power may look good by the numbers, but doesn't inherently better society -- consumerism doesn't encourage quality goods/services. take AI: it's a lot easier to replace human workers when they've quit, when the positions are already vacant. you don't need to provide on-par performance or quality service(s), just fill the shoes with slop

Post reply on HN