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

People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

731–740 of 809 posts

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#731

Post by rapind »

cbhl wrote: post #658
zazaalaza wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"UBI is a political decision which is renewed with every government" If this is true than implementing UBI will be more problematic than I thought. All UBI proposals so far call for all other financial safety nets to be removed in order to finance UBI. Managing that will be a nightmare if you can just cut off UBI, then you have to spin up everything else again. I imagine UBI to be something similar to how the pension…

Apparently, Ontario used to have a much large welfare program prior to 1995: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2018/ontario... So I guess that suggests that even if a UBI is implemented that it could be cut or repealed in a future government.

Welfare isn't UBI. Give everyone the same amount and you'll have a hard time convincing the people earning 70k to vote against another 12k... That's the secret formulae.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#732

Post by rapind »

joshgachnang wrote: post #688
ghostpepper wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this study, you were ineligible if you made more than $35k/year (~$26k USD). Is that still considered universal?

The study is meant to look at the effects of UBI, not provide a universal basic income to everyone. The study wouldn't be super useful if you included a billionaire, because nothing about their lives would change. They have limited money to do the study, so they have to draw a line somewhere.

I'm not sure how we went from $35k to billionaire, but I agree with your point. I am definitely curious though how it affects people earning 50k, 70k, 100k though. I suspect a chunky increase in index funds, retirement plans, and investing at some threshold, which affects the market at large. Social programs, children's sports (hockey equipment and ice rentals aren't cheap!), real estate, the list goes on. Obviously untestable, but interesting. Could be extremely transformational, or maybe cost of living simply jumps.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#733

Post by crystaln »

asjw wrote: post #350
crystaln wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the reason for ubi is that a lot of work is exploitative or underpaid. Ubi puts people in a negotiating position to not work and demand higher payment, or to not work and contribute to society in other ways.

Or could put them out of business forever because they are less keen to work hard than those not living on UBI (for different reasons, it doesn't really make a difference) I think UBI is a good redistribution strategy if it's truly universal and with not requirements, but work wise I doubt it will change much...

UBI has to be universal to work, or at least phased out slowly to avoid an income trap where working doesn't lead to an increase in income.

We have to accept that some people will accept free subsistence income and not work.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#734

Post by rapind »

felipemnoa wrote: post #614
sunshinerag wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly people would behave differently if they knew it was permanent vs temporary.

So, look at the people that win $1k a week for life and see how that turns out. https://nylottery.ny.gov/scratch-off/two-dollar/win-life

I think you'd then be skewing towards a sample that spends a lot of money on lottery tickets (certainly not something I do but maybe I'm the minority), and your sample size would be pretty small, and you wouldn't see how it affects a community.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#735

Post by rapind »

retpirato wrote: post #714
sixstringtheory wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Education does not equate to a successful job > The only thing that betters society is the positive application of knowledge To apply knowledge, you have to first acquire it. How do you propose to do so without education?

the point is a degree in a subject where there is no money to be made is a WASTE of money. A degree is not inherently worth the time & money spent earning it if you can't make a career with it. You'll also have student loans to pay for. Don't bother saying "free college" is the issue either. There's no such thing. Somebody is paying for that "free" college in the form of higher taxes.

Education in my opinion would be a bargain compared to insane levels of military spending, gas and oil subsidies, bank bailouts, etc. This is selfish though. One, I have to pay for my kids education some day, and two, I think it's overall a good thing for our species (depending on the quality).

Eventually we'll look back at college (including trades) education being free like we look now on elementary education being free.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#736

Post by danenania »

refurb wrote: post #704
danenania wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some do, but it's a small percentage. Many more struggle their whole lives to survive without being able to make any significant improvement to their family's economic status.

It's not a small percentage. 43% of children born into the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) remain in that bottom quintile as adults.

Posting statistics without a source or context isn't very helpful.

Though I have no idea where you got it from, or whether it refers to one country or the whole world, getting out of the bottom 20% and ending up the in the bottom 30%, for example, would still leave you in a situation where you're struggling to get by in most countries in the world. Which is why this doesn't contribute much without more context.

Edit: found it - https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_a...

It's quite interesting that you left out the very next phrase, cutting off your quote in the middle of a sentence:

"Forty-three percent of Americans raised in the bottom quintile remain stuck in the bottom as adults, and 70 percent remain below the middle."

Also, right above that is:

"Americans raised at the bottom and top of the family income ladder are likely to remain there as adults, a phenomenon known as 'stickiness at the ends'."

No wonder you didn't post a link.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#737

Post by refurb »

danenania wrote: post #736
refurb wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a small percentage. 43% of children born into the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) remain in that bottom quintile as adults.

Posting statistics without a source or context isn't very helpful. Though I have no idea where you got it from, or whether it refers to one country or the whole world, getting out of the bottom 20% and ending up the in the bottom 30%, for example, would still leave you in a situation where you're struggling to get by in most countries in the world. Which is why this doesn't contribute much without more context. Edit:…

You've proven my point for me.

You said: "Some do [make any significant improvement], but it's a small percentage."

I posted the fact that 43% start and stay in poverty, but that means 57% get out. 57% is not "a small percentage".

Even using your new data source of "and 70 percent remain below the middle." (which is counter to your original claim that people stay stuck in poverty - you could still remain below the middle, but not be in poverty any more), that still means 30% make their way out, which once again, is not "a small percentage".

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#738

Post by redis_mlc »

godelski wrote: post #667
CompBrogrammer wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This hardly seems like responding in good faith. At any rate, I believe the poster you responded to was using hyperbole to equate "history of the Kardashians" with some degree that he or she deems "equally as useless."

I was suggesting that they weren't responding in good faith. Which in this instance was the creation of straw man.

Stop being a pedant.

Instead of the usual "basket weaving" as an example of a useless field of study, he used "history of the Kardashians."

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#739

Post by danenania »

refurb wrote: post #737
danenania wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posting statistics without a source or context isn't very helpful. Though I have no idea where you got it from, or whether it refers to one country or the whole world, getting out of the bottom 20% and ending up the in the bottom 30%, for example, would still leave you in a situation where you're struggling to get by in most countries in the world. Which is why this doesn't contribute much without more context. Edit:…

You've proven my point for me. You said: "Some do [make any significant improvement], but it's a small percentage." I posted the fact that 43% start and stay in poverty, but that means 57% get out. 57% is not "a small percentage". Even using your new data source of "and 70 percent remain below the middle." (which is counter to your original claim that people stay stuck in poverty - you could still remain below the mi…

Whatever your point is (I really can't tell), it doesn't seem relevant to the post I was responding to, which said:

"Plenty of immigrant families leave low opportunity nation states and work what you consider demeaning work whilst taking steps to ensure their children seek more aspirational jobs and careers."

Nothing you posted indicates that's not a small percentage of people. But it certainly does show that growing up poor is a huge obstacle, and that while upward economic mobility does exist in the US, it's quite limited. To me, that all points toward favoring UBI, and against the idea that people can reliably escape living paycheck to paycheck (or worse) just by developing a good work ethic.

Also, it's not "my new data source". It's your data source. You just didn't bother to reference it.

Re: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

#740

Post by arczyx »

lliamander wrote: post #669
godelski wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under Yang's plan even if you made $100k/yr (single person household) you'd get an increase[0]. You'd be having to make roughly $140k+/yr to see a decrease in total income (140k results in -$66/yr). (If you were the norm of 2 adults and 2 children your household income would need to be north of $315k/yr to "shoulder" his UBI) So I'm not sure why you think the middle class will shoulder the bulk of the cost. Do you th…

Yang's plan also involves one of the highest deficit spending proposals of any of the UBI plans listed on that calculator. It's all very well and good to say "look, virtually everyone would see a net income increase!" until you realize that's only possible by literally just printing money. The costs of such high deficit spending are pretty certain, but the benefits meant to offset those costs are only speculative (an…

Governments are already printing money for the rich though, it's called 'Quantitative Easing'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

Post reply on HN