10 ms·

It's 5 years. Outlined in the link below https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income

by siphor 10y ago

mattkrisiloff 10y ago
And pilot we're thinking 6 months to a year -- though still to be determined / could change.
- bd 10y ago
  I'm afraid with such short duration you'll not be able to observe true effects of basic income on people's behaviors. It will be more something like "sabbatical" in academia - you can devote a time to some side projects (whether career related or pure leisure), but everything you'll do you'll do with considerations of how your life will proceed once the sabbatical is over and there is no more safety net (assuming rational actors).
  - elizabeth-ycr 10y ago
    The actual study will likely run for 5 years. The shorter pilot will help us refine our research design and mechanics; we don't expect to answer any of our research questions with the pilot.
    - JorgeGT 10y ago
      Most people will never abandon their job for 5 years of guaranteed income, even if they hate their job. What happens after the money ends? They have to re-train, search for a job, apply, interview, explain a 5 years gap, climb the office/workshop ladder from the bottom again... Situation changes radically if the income is guaranteed for life, if they are guaranteed to never have the necessity to work again. Since a study limited to 5 years can't, by design, satisfy this last condition, it won't be significant at predicting how many people will leave a "hard" job.
      - CuriousSkeptic 10y ago
        or they'll use the five years to retrain, start their own business, and if doesn't pans out, it's an easily explained gap with valuable experience
      - sampo 10y ago
        > Most people will never abandon their job for 5 years of guaranteed income, even if they hate their job. Perhaps, when no longer totally living hand-to-mouth, during those 5 years they can e.g. take evening classes and eventually qualify for a better job.
    - bd 10y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. Five years is much better but fundamental issue is still there - "there is a deadline after which the utopia ends". Did you consider maybe using fewer participants but possibly much longer time-frames (e.g. for the same budget 10x less people but 50 years of BI, or even 20x less participants and 100 years of BI to have safe margin)? I'm aware this would be hard / impossible to personally see to the full fruition (see e.g. Up series [1]), but even just that 5 years window frame for the observation and research (which you already prepared yourself for) but with participants who could have "piece of mind for the rest of their lives" could radically alter the results of the experiment. ------ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series
- tomp 10y ago
  What kind of results do you expect from this pilot? I imagine you could get some positive results (i.e. people change behaviour when they get unconditional income), but my expectation would be that not a lot would change. But the problem is that if the result is negative (the behaviour doesn't change), it will be invalid, but most likely misinterpreted by casual observers.
  - elizabeth-ycr 10y ago
    For the short-term pilot, we don't expect to see many behavioral changes--we'll just test the mechanics and refine our research design and outcome measures. We'll begin examining our research questions in earnest with the full 5-year study.
xienze 10y ago
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 generation BIers.
- jannotti 10y ago
  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 learn anything.
  - xienze 10y ago
    > 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.
    - marlag 10y ago
      "NEVER" You might think that, because no country has implemented BI, then considered it a failed project, then scraped that system for something better, yet. But one of the countries on this planet might be the first to try that. It's one of those "nobody done it yet thus it can't be done by anyone" ideas that reality so often find is false.
- alaskanloops 10y ago
  Yes but it's a starting point. Conducting a generational study will take, well, generations, and that's too long. Unfortunately the longer term, multi generation study will have to be "done in production" so to speak. It may work, it may not. But what we're (the US) doing now isn't working.
tdaltonc 10y ago
I think that's still up in the air. Hopefully they'll consult with the researcher they just hired before finalizing their back of the napkin design.
carapace 10y ago
So this isn't basic income at all, just a very very long vacation.

It's 5 years. Outlined in the link below https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income

by siphor 10y ago

It's 5 years. Outlined in the link below https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income

mattkrisiloff 10y ago

And pilot we're thinking 6 months to a year -- though still to be determined / could change.

bd 10y ago
I'm afraid with such short duration you'll not be able to observe true effects of basic income on people's behaviors. It will be more something like "sabbatical" in academia - you can devote a time to some side projects (whether career related or pure leisure), but everything you'll do you'll do with considerations of how your life will proceed once the sabbatical is over and there is no more safety net (assuming rational actors).
- elizabeth-ycr 10y ago
  The actual study will likely run for 5 years. The shorter pilot will help us refine our research design and mechanics; we don't expect to answer any of our research questions with the pilot.
  - JorgeGT 10y ago
    Most people will never abandon their job for 5 years of guaranteed income, even if they hate their job. What happens after the money ends? They have to re-train, search for a job, apply, interview, explain a 5 years gap, climb the office/workshop ladder from the bottom again... Situation changes radically if the income is guaranteed for life, if they are guaranteed to never have the necessity to work again. Since a study limited to 5 years can't, by design, satisfy this last condition, it won't be significant at predicting how many people will leave a "hard" job.
    - CuriousSkeptic 10y ago
      or they'll use the five years to retrain, start their own business, and if doesn't pans out, it's an easily explained gap with valuable experience
    - sampo 10y ago
      > Most people will never abandon their job for 5 years of guaranteed income, even if they hate their job. Perhaps, when no longer totally living hand-to-mouth, during those 5 years they can e.g. take evening classes and eventually qualify for a better job.
  - bd 10y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. Five years is much better but fundamental issue is still there - "there is a deadline after which the utopia ends". Did you consider maybe using fewer participants but possibly much longer time-frames (e.g. for the same budget 10x less people but 50 years of BI, or even 20x less participants and 100 years of BI to have safe margin)? I'm aware this would be hard / impossible to personally see to the full fruition (see e.g. Up series [1]), but even just that 5 years window frame for the observation and research (which you already prepared yourself for) but with participants who could have "piece of mind for the rest of their lives" could radically alter the results of the experiment. ------ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series
tomp 10y ago
What kind of results do you expect from this pilot? I imagine you could get some positive results (i.e. people change behaviour when they get unconditional income), but my expectation would be that not a lot would change. But the problem is that if the result is negative (the behaviour doesn't change), it will be invalid, but most likely misinterpreted by casual observers.
- elizabeth-ycr 10y ago
  For the short-term pilot, we don't expect to see many behavioral changes--we'll just test the mechanics and refine our research design and outcome measures. We'll begin examining our research questions in earnest with the full 5-year study.

xienze 10y ago

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 generation BIers.

jannotti 10y ago
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 learn anything.
- xienze 10y ago
  > 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.
  - marlag 10y ago
    "NEVER" You might think that, because no country has implemented BI, then considered it a failed project, then scraped that system for something better, yet. But one of the countries on this planet might be the first to try that. It's one of those "nobody done it yet thus it can't be done by anyone" ideas that reality so often find is false.
alaskanloops 10y ago
Yes but it's a starting point. Conducting a generational study will take, well, generations, and that's too long. Unfortunately the longer term, multi generation study will have to be "done in production" so to speak. It may work, it may not. But what we're (the US) doing now isn't working.

tdaltonc 10y ago

I think that's still up in the air. Hopefully they'll consult with the researcher they just hired before finalizing their back of the napkin design.

carapace 10y ago

So this isn't basic income at all, just a very very long vacation.