5 ms·

Well, this is what you believe it does, but is it proven or at least fairly convincingly demonstrated by at least some model or more thoughtful argumentation?

Well, this is what you believe it does, but is it proven or at least fairly convincingly demonstrated by at least some model or more thoughtful argumentation? I have not researched this topic or given any longer thought about this, so at this point I am honestly curious. For example how would the market react to this? Mostly what would happen with prices of essential goods and housing? More importantly, how would people react sexually? Would they start having more babies just because they now can? What group of people would pick up this behaviour? For example in my opinion most of the possible wealth accumulation in the third world countries is destroyed by very high population growth (in most countries above 4 times in 50 last years; fortunately this decreasing in many places). Is this mostly a solved problem for developed world?

onion2k 11y ago
Well, this is what you believe it does, but is it proven or at least fairly convincingly demonstrated by at least some model or more thoughtful argumentation? Yes. It's been modelled extensively, and has been found to work, and it's worked in different pilot programmes over the past 40 years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots Is this mostly a solved problem for developed world? 19.9 million Americans live in extreme poverty[1], so no it isn't. [1] http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.ht...
- eveningcoffee 11y ago
  19.9 million Americans live in extreme poverty[1], so no it isn't. The question was not about the living conditions of the people but about their reproductive behaviour. I understand that this is mostly cultural phenomenon, so the question is, is this behaviour still prevalent in the dormant condition and will reappear when given opportunity. Yes. It's been modelled extensively, and has been found to work, and it's worked in different pilot programmes over the past 40 years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots Interesting list but I did not see any of my questions addressed there.
  - qntty 11y ago
    The amount of kids people have is dominated by whether they have easy access to birth control. Money is secondary to that.
    - eveningcoffee 11y ago
      And access to the birth control is mostly limited by the culture, not money.
      - Retra 11y ago
        And culture is shaped by money.
        eveningcoffee 11y ago
        I would disagree. Money is artefact of the culture. If you miss what I want to day by this, I would recommend you to read this nice essay: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/picks-from-the-past/12476/shakespeare-in-the-bush http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/picks-from-the-past/12476/s...
Aaargh20318 11y ago
> Would they start having more babies just because they now can? Why would they ? Look around you, does it look like people take their income into account when they decide to procreate ?
- newjersey 11y ago
  I am poor and I can't imagine suddenly deciding I want kids if I came upon a lot of wealth. A jetski maybe but not children. Some people just want a lot of children. I'm biased against it and I think people shouldn't have kids if they don't have the means to provide for them but I can't get a politician to support this platform of pay to play. I don't think basic income should apply to children. Only adults who are free to spend the money as they see fit should be eligible. The amount of basic income should not change by the number of dependents.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    What do you see as the purpose of basic income? I see it as lifting everyone to a basic standard of living before wages are taken in to account. Not considering dependents means that those children would be penalised with a lower standard of living (food, clothing, dwelling) than I'd considered basic in the society they are in. Should some children not get to eat because their parents are especially fecund? Overpopulation is a big issue but IMO needs addressing separately to provision of basic living standards.
    - morgante 11y ago
      Having children is a choice. I've never understood why welfare schemes reward people for having children and insist on socializing the cost of that choice.
      - Retra 11y ago
        Because society needs children. Or at least, it always has in the past. And given that people are still prone to tribalistic thinking, it's a hard belief to wash away. You may not notice it if you live in a relatively homogenous culture. But when your 'enemy tribes' plan to extinguish you by outnumbering you, it's a real concern.
morgante 11y ago
If you'd done even a tiny bit of research, you'd realize that there's actually a negative correlation between income and fertility.
- eveningcoffee 11y ago
  Correlation, yes, but are also proposing that low income causes to have more children? I rather believe that the causes for both, low income and too many children are both cultural origin. Why I believe that? All the attempts to easy the burden of the low income people by development of the better crops have gone directly into increasing the population instead of increasing the wealth and well-being.
  - morgante 11y ago
    The correlations exist within countries, not just between them. Moreover, as an individual country's wealth increases generally its fertility rate declines. It seems like you have some bigoted beliefs and I challenge you to actually look at the data.
    - eveningcoffee 11y ago
      I think that you fail to understand the reasons behind the wealth increase. Wealth increase does not usually happen by itself. It happens mostly because people do something differently. This change is very often gradual inside the society. Correlation between wealth increase and fertility rate in a single country is a very good indicator of this. The main question posed in my original post is actually different.
  - fucking_tragedy 11y ago
    > All the attempts to easy the burden of the low income people by development of the better crops have gone directly into increasing the population instead of increasing the wealth and well-being. Do you have a citation for this opinion?
    - 11y ago
dang 11y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11465477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11465477 and marked it off-topic.
- eveningcoffee 11y ago
  Thanks! I did not expect it to explode like this.

onion2k 11y ago

Well, this is what you believe it does, but is it proven or at least fairly convincingly demonstrated by at least some model or more thoughtful argumentation? Yes. It's been modelled extensively, and has been found to work, and it's worked in different pilot programmes over the past 40 years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots Is this mostly a solved problem for developed world? 19.9 million Americans live in extreme poverty[1], so no it isn't. [1] http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.ht...

eveningcoffee 11y ago
19.9 million Americans live in extreme poverty[1], so no it isn't. The question was not about the living conditions of the people but about their reproductive behaviour. I understand that this is mostly cultural phenomenon, so the question is, is this behaviour still prevalent in the dormant condition and will reappear when given opportunity. Yes. It's been modelled extensively, and has been found to work, and it's worked in different pilot programmes over the past 40 years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots Interesting list but I did not see any of my questions addressed there.
- qntty 11y ago
  The amount of kids people have is dominated by whether they have easy access to birth control. Money is secondary to that.
  - eveningcoffee 11y ago
    And access to the birth control is mostly limited by the culture, not money.
    - Retra 11y ago
      And culture is shaped by money.
      - eveningcoffee 11y ago
        I would disagree. Money is artefact of the culture. If you miss what I want to day by this, I would recommend you to read this nice essay: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/picks-from-the-past/12476/shakespeare-in-the-bush http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/picks-from-the-past/12476/s...

Aaargh20318 11y ago

> Would they start having more babies just because they now can? Why would they ? Look around you, does it look like people take their income into account when they decide to procreate ?

newjersey 11y ago
I am poor and I can't imagine suddenly deciding I want kids if I came upon a lot of wealth. A jetski maybe but not children. Some people just want a lot of children. I'm biased against it and I think people shouldn't have kids if they don't have the means to provide for them but I can't get a politician to support this platform of pay to play. I don't think basic income should apply to children. Only adults who are free to spend the money as they see fit should be eligible. The amount of basic income should not change by the number of dependents.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  What do you see as the purpose of basic income? I see it as lifting everyone to a basic standard of living before wages are taken in to account. Not considering dependents means that those children would be penalised with a lower standard of living (food, clothing, dwelling) than I'd considered basic in the society they are in. Should some children not get to eat because their parents are especially fecund? Overpopulation is a big issue but IMO needs addressing separately to provision of basic living standards.
  - morgante 11y ago
    Having children is a choice. I've never understood why welfare schemes reward people for having children and insist on socializing the cost of that choice.
    - Retra 11y ago
      Because society needs children. Or at least, it always has in the past. And given that people are still prone to tribalistic thinking, it's a hard belief to wash away. You may not notice it if you live in a relatively homogenous culture. But when your 'enemy tribes' plan to extinguish you by outnumbering you, it's a real concern.

morgante 11y ago

If you'd done even a tiny bit of research, you'd realize that there's actually a negative correlation between income and fertility.

eveningcoffee 11y ago
Correlation, yes, but are also proposing that low income causes to have more children? I rather believe that the causes for both, low income and too many children are both cultural origin. Why I believe that? All the attempts to easy the burden of the low income people by development of the better crops have gone directly into increasing the population instead of increasing the wealth and well-being.
- morgante 11y ago
  The correlations exist within countries, not just between them. Moreover, as an individual country's wealth increases generally its fertility rate declines. It seems like you have some bigoted beliefs and I challenge you to actually look at the data.
  - eveningcoffee 11y ago
    I think that you fail to understand the reasons behind the wealth increase. Wealth increase does not usually happen by itself. It happens mostly because people do something differently. This change is very often gradual inside the society. Correlation between wealth increase and fertility rate in a single country is a very good indicator of this. The main question posed in my original post is actually different.
- fucking_tragedy 11y ago
  > All the attempts to easy the burden of the low income people by development of the better crops have gone directly into increasing the population instead of increasing the wealth and well-being. Do you have a citation for this opinion?
  - 11y ago

dang 11y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11465477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11465477 and marked it off-topic.

eveningcoffee 11y ago
Thanks! I did not expect it to explode like this.