8 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoObama 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 agoThe former. The latter is a racist caricature of welfare.
- ratsmack 10y agoThere was no race stated anywhere in the comment, so I believe you meant to use a word something like "stereotypical".
- daveguy 10y agoWe'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 agoTo expand on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics
- bhickey 10y agoNo, 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 agoLets 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 agoThe 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.
- bhickey 10y agoPoor people use illegal drugs at a lower rate than wealthy people. Probably because drugs are expensive and they don't have as much leisure time. The notion that we should drug test welfare recipients is just an outgrowth of condescending Calvinist morality.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoWrong on all counts. Poor people have more leisure time and do more drugs. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication... https://www.nber.org/chapters/c11165.pdf https://www.nber.org/chapters/c11165.pdf Why not just spend 2 minutes googling like I did before posting ?
- bhickey 10y agoThanks for your condescension. http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/21/house-republicans-want-drug-tests-for-food-stamp-recipients-theres-no-good-reason-for-that/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/21/house...
- karmicthreat 10y agoNot racist, but perhaps a bit too coarse. I don't really consider BI to be welfare though. It's not need based, and generally has more possible upsides to it than welfare. Like being able to start a business with the money. Point is it could be the wrong direction. We don't really know yet how it should be implemented. Experiments like this are what is going to tell us.
- mtanski 10y agoWe'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 agoIf 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 agoTalk about the mother of all selection biases...