5 ms·

"Basic Income that ends in 1/5/10 years" is not basic income at all. For some of the population they will literally be studying the effects of a temporary sala

"Basic Income that ends in 1/5/10 years" is not basic income at all. For some of the population they will literally be studying the effects of a temporary salary increase that follows a person if they change jobs. For some of the population they will be studying a don't-have-to-work sabbatical.

namenotrequired 10y ago
Realistically a Basic Income wouldn't be guaranteed forever either, as it'd rely on a government, which tend to be replaced every 4 - 8 years. The main difference is perhaps that they know how long it will last. Edit: rephrase because I didn't express myself very well
- xienze 10y ago
  > Realistically a Basic Income wouldn't be guaranteed forever either, as it'd rely on a government, which tend to be replaced every 4 - 8 years. The main difference is perhaps that they know how long it will last. That's like saying our existing welfare programs won't be around forever. But guess what -- they will. Handing out free money is an easy way to win votes and an even easier way to lose them if you take it away.
  - lukeschlather 10y ago
    Welfare in the USA has been scaled back considerably over the past 20 years, and it has been done with enough popular support that the people working to reduce welfare continue to win elections. So no, welfare will not necessarily be around forever. And the systems that exist rarely last long on an individual basis.
ncallaway 10y ago
What are you quoting with the quotation marks? I agree with you on that a BI that ends in 1 year isn't a good test. However, from the article their goal with the sort-term pilot is "to prepare for the longer-term study by working on our methods--how to pay people, how to collect data, how to randomly choose a sample, etc". So...who cares if the short-term pilot isn't a good study on BI? That's not their goal. I disagree with you that 10 years of BI wouldn't count as BI. That is a long time for an individual to be receiving an unconditional income.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  The point of BI is that you wouldn't have to worry about supporting yourself for the bare necessities. If it's only 10 years long you still have to consider your career prospects after you lose BI. If you tell an employer "I've been out of a job for 10 years because I got free money and didn't need to work" they aren't exactly going to jump at the chance to hire you. Plus your skills will be out of date.
  - ncallaway 10y ago
    > you wouldn't have to worry about supporting yourself for the bare necessities I know very few people who only work in order to secure for themselves the bare necessities of life. I suspect, even in an infinite BI world, many people would work in order to be able to have more than the bare necessities. However, anecdotal evidence such as "people I personally know" is terrible evidence for making drastic changes to our social welfare programs. Which is why we need small scale studies and pilot programs in order to begin to assess the data of how people behave when they receive BI. > If you tell an employer "I've been out of a job for 10 years because I got free money and didn't need to work" they aren't ... No, but if you really didn't want to work, you could easily take 6 years off and then spend 2 years on education, and another 2 years getting back into the job market. It would be really good to have this kind of data.
shkkmo 10y ago
The article specifically addresses this: "We want to run a large, long-term study to answer a few key questions: how people’s happiness, well-being, and financial health are affected by basic income, as well as how people might spend their time. But before we do that, we’re going to start with a short-term pilot in Oakland. Our goal will be to prepare for the longer-term study by working on our methods--how to pay people, how to collect data, how to randomly choose a sample, etc."

namenotrequired 10y ago

Realistically a Basic Income wouldn't be guaranteed forever either, as it'd rely on a government, which tend to be replaced every 4 - 8 years. The main difference is perhaps that they know how long it will last. Edit: rephrase because I didn't express myself very well

xienze 10y ago
> Realistically a Basic Income wouldn't be guaranteed forever either, as it'd rely on a government, which tend to be replaced every 4 - 8 years. The main difference is perhaps that they know how long it will last. That's like saying our existing welfare programs won't be around forever. But guess what -- they will. Handing out free money is an easy way to win votes and an even easier way to lose them if you take it away.
- lukeschlather 10y ago
  Welfare in the USA has been scaled back considerably over the past 20 years, and it has been done with enough popular support that the people working to reduce welfare continue to win elections. So no, welfare will not necessarily be around forever. And the systems that exist rarely last long on an individual basis.

ncallaway 10y ago

What are you quoting with the quotation marks? I agree with you on that a BI that ends in 1 year isn't a good test. However, from the article their goal with the sort-term pilot is "to prepare for the longer-term study by working on our methods--how to pay people, how to collect data, how to randomly choose a sample, etc". So...who cares if the short-term pilot isn't a good study on BI? That's not their goal. I disagree with you that 10 years of BI wouldn't count as BI. That is a long time for an individual to be receiving an unconditional income.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
The point of BI is that you wouldn't have to worry about supporting yourself for the bare necessities. If it's only 10 years long you still have to consider your career prospects after you lose BI. If you tell an employer "I've been out of a job for 10 years because I got free money and didn't need to work" they aren't exactly going to jump at the chance to hire you. Plus your skills will be out of date.
- ncallaway 10y ago
  > you wouldn't have to worry about supporting yourself for the bare necessities I know very few people who only work in order to secure for themselves the bare necessities of life. I suspect, even in an infinite BI world, many people would work in order to be able to have more than the bare necessities. However, anecdotal evidence such as "people I personally know" is terrible evidence for making drastic changes to our social welfare programs. Which is why we need small scale studies and pilot programs in order to begin to assess the data of how people behave when they receive BI. > If you tell an employer "I've been out of a job for 10 years because I got free money and didn't need to work" they aren't ... No, but if you really didn't want to work, you could easily take 6 years off and then spend 2 years on education, and another 2 years getting back into the job market. It would be really good to have this kind of data.

shkkmo 10y ago

The article specifically addresses this: "We want to run a large, long-term study to answer a few key questions: how people’s happiness, well-being, and financial health are affected by basic income, as well as how people might spend their time. But before we do that, we’re going to start with a short-term pilot in Oakland. Our goal will be to prepare for the longer-term study by working on our methods--how to pay people, how to collect data, how to randomly choose a sample, etc."