6 ms·

Would individuals be restricted from using any government social welfare programs during this period? Many advocates propose funding basic income by disbanding

Would individuals be restricted from using any government social welfare programs during this period? Many advocates propose funding basic income by disbanding current safety nets. If recipients are living in public housing, collecting food stamps, accepting federal student loans, or any other form of indirect government aid, then it skews the results.

karmicthreat 10y ago
It might skew it, but YC is probably trying to answer a more fundamental question. If people are provided a minimum lifestyle what will they do? I don't think anyone really knows if it will be a golden age of entrepreneurs and self improvement. Or if people will just sit on the couch, have kids till they can't afford them, become addicted to drugs.
- TheCowboy 10y ago
  I understand this, but ignoring what I mentioned means the question becomes, "What would people, who are provided a basic income in addition to basic government services, do?" For example, an important question is if the implementation would require disbanding Obamacare, reverting to the old system, etc. The ability to obtain healthcare can sway a lot of outcomes. I might have pursued a more entrepreneurial path in the past if I had an option of basic income in addition to healthcare.
  - pmorici 10y ago
    Obama care made health insurance a lot more expensive for me. I used to pay $66 a month for a high deductible PPO plan now I have to pay triple that for an HMO with a similarly high deductible. In other words it made following an entrepreneurial path more expensive.
- daveguy 10y ago
  The former. The latter is a racist caricature of welfare.
  - ratsmack 10y ago
    There was no race stated anywhere in the comment, so I believe you meant to use a word something like "stereotypical".
    - daveguy 10y ago
      We're grownups here. It doesn't require an explicit reference to race to read between the lines. That stereotype is a historically racist get-out-our-kind-of-voters code.
      - jmcgough 10y ago
        To expand on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics
    - bhickey 10y ago
      No, he didn't. This stereotypical depiction of welfare is a racial dog whistle. The whole point is to say "black" without saying "black".
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Lets interpret the claim charitably - people on welfare have reduced work effort, increased fertility, and increased drug consumption. Do you assert that any of those claims are false?
    - daveguy 10y ago
      The assertion is that none of those are inherent qualities of a group. Reduced work effort is a chicken egg issue. Of course people on welfare are going to have reduced "work effort" -- joblessness is probably what made you have to get it in the first place. Same with drug consumption. I would question any "higher drug use" measure as selection bias -- investment bankers aren't generally being drug tested are they? That doesn't mean the overwhelming majority are not eager to earn a productive living. I think it would be great to drug test for it (but damn expensive and not very libertarian). I bet you'd see a lot of well off people not opting for the free income because they "don't need it" whereas they'd line up for it without a drug test.
- mtanski 10y ago
  We've seen string free money transfer already work in some places. There's been a few trials an follow up on that, although not in Western countries. What I'm really curious to personally answer is: what would happen if everybody would be guaranteed a basic income? What kind of problems would it introduce? Would the new minimum income become a poor tool because of corresponding price increases (to capture that income)? Or would it work well long term? That's why I'd love to see a small country. Preferably not Switzerland or Nordic. Because they've been able to create programs that others have a hard time replicating. A country with a more mixed population (religions, races, education levels).
- chromatic 10y ago
  If people are provided a minimum lifestyle what will they do? I don't think anyone really knows if it will be a golden age of entrepreneurs and self improvement. If only there were a group of people with sufficient money they never had to work! We could study them and see what they did to amuse themselves.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Talk about the mother of all selection biases...
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> If recipients are living in public housing, collecting food stamps, accepting federal student loans, or any other form of indirect government aid, then it skews the results. Depending on how much money it is, the extra income might disqualify them from receiving most of that stuff anyway, especially if they also have any kind of a job. That's going to be the real thing to watch out for though. If the basic income isn't enough to disqualify you from welfare but basic income + job is, the study is going to be useless unless you prohibit the subjects from also applying for welfare.
- TheCowboy 10y ago
  A lot of programs aren't that black and white when it comes to eligibility, and how many dependents a person has will also affect benefits. So that's yet another thing that needs to be controlled for if we want to put trust into the results. One elegant way to ensure that people don't use these benefits, and that doesn't leave them worse off, is to make minimum income higher than all of the income eligibility limits.
DonaldFisk 10y ago
Isn't receipt of benefits from these government social welfare programs dependent on having no other source of income? If so, the recipients of the basic income would lose the benefits. If not, the benefits are themselves a form of basic income.
- TheCowboy 10y ago
  It's not that binary. The idea that you don't want programs to discourage people from working guides a lot of the income schedules. This is a good example of how some programs work that could conflict with the experiment: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/income-rules-income-limits http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/income-rules-income-limits

karmicthreat 10y ago

It might skew it, but YC is probably trying to answer a more fundamental question. If people are provided a minimum lifestyle what will they do? I don't think anyone really knows if it will be a golden age of entrepreneurs and self improvement. Or if people will just sit on the couch, have kids till they can't afford them, become addicted to drugs.

TheCowboy 10y ago
I understand this, but ignoring what I mentioned means the question becomes, "What would people, who are provided a basic income in addition to basic government services, do?" For example, an important question is if the implementation would require disbanding Obamacare, reverting to the old system, etc. The ability to obtain healthcare can sway a lot of outcomes. I might have pursued a more entrepreneurial path in the past if I had an option of basic income in addition to healthcare.
- pmorici 10y ago
  Obama care made health insurance a lot more expensive for me. I used to pay $66 a month for a high deductible PPO plan now I have to pay triple that for an HMO with a similarly high deductible. In other words it made following an entrepreneurial path more expensive.
daveguy 10y ago
The former. The latter is a racist caricature of welfare.
- ratsmack 10y ago
  There was no race stated anywhere in the comment, so I believe you meant to use a word something like "stereotypical".
  - daveguy 10y ago
    We're grownups here. It doesn't require an explicit reference to race to read between the lines. That stereotype is a historically racist get-out-our-kind-of-voters code.
    - jmcgough 10y ago
      To expand on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics
  - bhickey 10y ago
    No, he didn't. This stereotypical depiction of welfare is a racial dog whistle. The whole point is to say "black" without saying "black".
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Lets interpret the claim charitably - people on welfare have reduced work effort, increased fertility, and increased drug consumption. Do you assert that any of those claims are false?
  - daveguy 10y ago
    The assertion is that none of those are inherent qualities of a group. Reduced work effort is a chicken egg issue. Of course people on welfare are going to have reduced "work effort" -- joblessness is probably what made you have to get it in the first place. Same with drug consumption. I would question any "higher drug use" measure as selection bias -- investment bankers aren't generally being drug tested are they? That doesn't mean the overwhelming majority are not eager to earn a productive living. I think it would be great to drug test for it (but damn expensive and not very libertarian). I bet you'd see a lot of well off people not opting for the free income because they "don't need it" whereas they'd line up for it without a drug test.
mtanski 10y ago
We've seen string free money transfer already work in some places. There's been a few trials an follow up on that, although not in Western countries. What I'm really curious to personally answer is: what would happen if everybody would be guaranteed a basic income? What kind of problems would it introduce? Would the new minimum income become a poor tool because of corresponding price increases (to capture that income)? Or would it work well long term? That's why I'd love to see a small country. Preferably not Switzerland or Nordic. Because they've been able to create programs that others have a hard time replicating. A country with a more mixed population (religions, races, education levels).
chromatic 10y ago
If people are provided a minimum lifestyle what will they do? I don't think anyone really knows if it will be a golden age of entrepreneurs and self improvement. If only there were a group of people with sufficient money they never had to work! We could study them and see what they did to amuse themselves.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Talk about the mother of all selection biases...

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> If recipients are living in public housing, collecting food stamps, accepting federal student loans, or any other form of indirect government aid, then it skews the results. Depending on how much money it is, the extra income might disqualify them from receiving most of that stuff anyway, especially if they also have any kind of a job. That's going to be the real thing to watch out for though. If the basic income isn't enough to disqualify you from welfare but basic income + job is, the study is going to be useless unless you prohibit the subjects from also applying for welfare.

TheCowboy 10y ago
A lot of programs aren't that black and white when it comes to eligibility, and how many dependents a person has will also affect benefits. So that's yet another thing that needs to be controlled for if we want to put trust into the results. One elegant way to ensure that people don't use these benefits, and that doesn't leave them worse off, is to make minimum income higher than all of the income eligibility limits.

DonaldFisk 10y ago

Isn't receipt of benefits from these government social welfare programs dependent on having no other source of income? If so, the recipients of the basic income would lose the benefits. If not, the benefits are themselves a form of basic income.

TheCowboy 10y ago
It's not that binary. The idea that you don't want programs to discourage people from working guides a lot of the income schedules. This is a good example of how some programs work that could conflict with the experiment: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/income-rules-income-limits http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/income-rules-income-limits