7 ms·

There's only one way to study something like this.. and that's to do it. 5 years is a pretty amazing amount of time and I'm sure some great data will come out

by siphor 10y ago

There's only one way to study something like this.. and that's to do it. 5 years is a pretty amazing amount of time and I'm sure some great data will come out of it. Some smart people will probably treat it as a short-term thing and treat it as such, but the majority of the population are probably short sighted and will treat it as if it will be there forever. You can do a lot in 5 years.

Alupis 10y ago
> There's only one way to study something like this.. and that's to do it This is a dangerous thing to experiment with when you have a huge nation of 318+ Million population. It's far safer to let smaller nations, like Finland (whose entire population is less than New York City), test this idea out for a few generations. It's far easier to "bail out" a city's worth of people than it is a large nation, if things don't go as planned.
- clavalle 10y ago
  Or maybe a some folks in Oakland?
  - Alupis 10y ago
    > Or maybe a some folks in Oakland? I don't think a city in the US is a good sample, since people are more likely to move in and out of the city during a generational (or multi-generational) test case. In addition, city lines/boundaries are "fuzzy" a lot of the time, often with one side of a street being incorporated and the other side not, etc. City boundary lines may also shift over time, etc. In addition, if it's known anyone with an Oakland address gets BI, some (or many) people will attempt to move there, which will cause other unintended economic consequences for the city, skewing the test results. A [small] nation is a better sample, since it tends to have fewer of these issues over a long time span.
    - clavalle 10y ago
      But you are just guessing at what the problems might be. I think that is the point of this pilot -- find the problems that crop up. Your own argument is that it should not be done wholesale until we know what the effects are at a smaller level: that's what's being done here. Start small. Fix smaller problems. Ratchet up. Rinse and repeat.
      - Alupis 10y ago
        Well, it's difficult to see how this trial study is going to yield any useful information. - The sample subjects are incredibly biased, in that they are already founders and presumably motivated individuals. Not a representation of the general population, not even close. - The study has a time limit (5 years). So no test subject is going to make life-long or life-altering decisions based on this limited trial. So, this study doesn't seem to accomplish any of the basic tasks needed to study ramifications of such an idea in practice. All we will know after this study is concluded, is how founders treat monthly cash given to them for 5 years. In reality, it sounds a lot like YC is just paying them a salary to build their business. YC is testing the outcome of paying their founders a salary in order to achieve greater gains down the road... something any business will attest to being beneficial. This is not a BI study. I agree, start small, work up. This is why I said let a small nation conduct this test (such as Finland, who is already planning to convert into a BI economy full-scale, from my understanding). > But you are just guessing at what the problems might be. No, the issues listed in my previous post are clearly issues with conducting this test at a city level. Part of preparing a study is to examine complications that may impact the findings... and these are obvious complications.
        clavalle 10y ago
        I think you are putting too much weight on this pilot. They aren't trying to find out if BI is going to work, they are trying to suss out basic, mechanical issues that they might not have thought of. If good BI data comes from it, great, but that's not the point yet.
        elizabeth-ycr 10y ago
fouc 10y ago
5 years is perfect! 44% lottery winners go broke within that time. :D It would be interesting to see how many people are lazy for the first 4 years and then get their shit together in the 5th year.

by siphor 10y ago

Alupis 10y ago

> There's only one way to study something like this.. and that's to do it This is a dangerous thing to experiment with when you have a huge nation of 318+ Million population. It's far safer to let smaller nations, like Finland (whose entire population is less than New York City), test this idea out for a few generations. It's far easier to "bail out" a city's worth of people than it is a large nation, if things don't go as planned.

clavalle 10y ago
Or maybe a some folks in Oakland?
- Alupis 10y ago
  > Or maybe a some folks in Oakland? I don't think a city in the US is a good sample, since people are more likely to move in and out of the city during a generational (or multi-generational) test case. In addition, city lines/boundaries are "fuzzy" a lot of the time, often with one side of a street being incorporated and the other side not, etc. City boundary lines may also shift over time, etc. In addition, if it's known anyone with an Oakland address gets BI, some (or many) people will attempt to move there, which will cause other unintended economic consequences for the city, skewing the test results. A [small] nation is a better sample, since it tends to have fewer of these issues over a long time span.
  - clavalle 10y ago
    But you are just guessing at what the problems might be. I think that is the point of this pilot -- find the problems that crop up. Your own argument is that it should not be done wholesale until we know what the effects are at a smaller level: that's what's being done here. Start small. Fix smaller problems. Ratchet up. Rinse and repeat.
    - Alupis 10y ago
      Well, it's difficult to see how this trial study is going to yield any useful information. - The sample subjects are incredibly biased, in that they are already founders and presumably motivated individuals. Not a representation of the general population, not even close. - The study has a time limit (5 years). So no test subject is going to make life-long or life-altering decisions based on this limited trial. So, this study doesn't seem to accomplish any of the basic tasks needed to study ramifications of such an idea in practice. All we will know after this study is concluded, is how founders treat monthly cash given to them for 5 years. In reality, it sounds a lot like YC is just paying them a salary to build their business. YC is testing the outcome of paying their founders a salary in order to achieve greater gains down the road... something any business will attest to being beneficial. This is not a BI study. I agree, start small, work up. This is why I said let a small nation conduct this test (such as Finland, who is already planning to convert into a BI economy full-scale, from my understanding). > But you are just guessing at what the problems might be. No, the issues listed in my previous post are clearly issues with conducting this test at a city level. Part of preparing a study is to examine complications that may impact the findings... and these are obvious complications.
      - clavalle 10y ago
        I think you are putting too much weight on this pilot. They aren't trying to find out if BI is going to work, they are trying to suss out basic, mechanical issues that they might not have thought of. If good BI data comes from it, great, but that's not the point yet.
      - elizabeth-ycr 10y ago

fouc 10y ago

5 years is perfect! 44% lottery winners go broke within that time. :D It would be interesting to see how many people are lazy for the first 4 years and then get their shit together in the 5th year.