12 ms·

Jobless people generally cannot earn additional income while collecting unemployment benefits or they risk losing that assistance. Worst. Idea. Ever. I know

Jobless people generally cannot earn additional income while collecting unemployment benefits or they risk losing that assistance. Worst. Idea. Ever. I know -- it's a common feature of income support systems, including here in the US. I don't know whether UBI is going to prove workable or not. But even if it doesn't, if we could just redesign the systems we do have so they never give recipients a disincentive to work more, that would be a huge, huge improvement.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nickff 10y ago
And taking a job once should not permanently disqualify someone from long-term aid programs like social security.
TillE 10y ago
Means-tested programs are the epitome of wasteful government bureaucracy. It's never the right way to "compromise". If we can't sell straight UBI, then something like universal food stamps would be a good first step: https://web.archive.org/web/20160321083817/http://mattbruenig.com/2013/04/10/just-give-everyone-food-stamps/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160321083817/http://mattbrueni...
- dfraser992 10y ago
  I am reminded of an article I read years ago (sorry, no reference) about a low income family in Chicago (I think) during the Reagan era. The family had saved up a bit of money to send their kid to college, but some bureaucratic org found out. It was responsible for handling their benefits and because the total amount of assets the family had was over an acceptable limit, they cut out _all_ benefits to the family. Till the bank account went down to acceptable levels. Way to go towards helping people help themselves, encouraging middle class values, responsibility, yadda yadda, all the usual stuff Republicans blather about but don't actually care about.
  - tgarma1234 10y ago
    I remember that story and it might have been during the first Clinton campaign in the 90s or anyway one of those "Welfare Queen" stories meant to make public assistance seem like a shorthand for "laziness". There are asset tests for assistance and you can see them broken down state by state here: http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/latest/measure/asset-limits-in-public-benefit-programs http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/latest/measure/ass...
  - briandear 10y ago
    Explain to me why my tax dollars should pay for other people again? I am not sure I understand why my labor must pay for others against my wishes. If I want to donate to charity, I will. Taxes should be used to pay for shared resources (roads, police, military,) but paying other people's living expenses? No thanks. America has poor and unemployed, yet Democrats seem to have no problem with illegal immigration which reduces the ability for those poor and unemployed to gets jobs.
    - taxtaker 10y ago
      > Explain to me why my tax dollars should pay for other people again? Umm, because we don't want them to die? And society as a whole benefits from it? > I am not sure I understand why my labor must pay for others against my wishes. What gave you the idea you get to decide what taxes are used for?
    - lastyearman 10y ago
      Few reasons come to mind: The way capitalism is designed is that not everyone can have a job. So you pay the poor not to starve and come loot your house. Also, I believe, there was a study suggesting that more equal society is better for everyone involved, including you. Poverty also inhibits education and I suppose you can figure out why uneducated or lowly educated society is bad.
      - vixen99 10y ago
        Capitalism is 'designed'? So who were the 'Marx and Engels' of capitalism when folk were trading with each other out of their caves?
- pvdebbe 10y ago
  Also a huge problem is that you get this living support based on your income, and it has no proper upper bounds. One could receive hundreds if not a thousand euro in extra support if they chose to live in a costly neighborhood (namely, central Helsinki). Even more of a disincentivizing factor to consider here.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    It used to be even more weird. About 20 years ago, when our kids were small, I was simultaneously in two groups: 1) High income: My personal gross income was among the top 20 % of earners. Thus, high taxes. 2) Poverty: My family's net income after housing expenses was below the threshold of the last-resort income support. All it took was having three small children, wife not working as the youngest was a newborn thus only the minimal maternity allowance, Helsinki region housing costs and the progressive taxation of "high earners". The way to get out of it was to take a job abroad for a while. But Finland is my home, even if I hate some parts of the welfare state politics, so I came back.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  I'm not necessarily opposed to means-testing; for example, progressive income tax rates can be seen as a form of means-testing, and I think they're a good thing. What I care about is that the function from income earned to income (including subsidy) received be monotonic. Again, the income tax system (at least in the US) is carefully designed to have this property: when you make enough more money to move into a higher tax bracket, that higher rate is applied only to the amount of your income in excess of the lower bound at which that bracket applies. So the total amount of tax never jumps discontinuously, even though the marginal rate increases. Even though you keep less of your next dollar of earnings the more you make, there's never a point at which earning the next dollar will leave you with less money after tax. The same should be true even if you're receiving a subsidy. That's all I'm saying.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    The combination of a fixed-amount UBI and a fixed-rate tax does exactly what people want. The marginal tax rate is completely unwavering for everyone and the effective tax rate ((tax paid - UBI)/income)) follows a nice continuous progressive curve. > Even though you keep less of your next dollar of earnings the more you make, there's never a point at which earning the next dollar will leave you with less money after tax. The problem is that's not the only thing you want. You also don't want marginal rates of 75%+ for low and middle income people. It's not only that taking a $20K/year job shouldn't cost you $21K/year in benefits, it's that it shouldn't cost you $15K/year in benefits while you now incur more transportation and childcare expenses.
    - hibikir 10y ago
      A fixed amount UBI and a fixed rate tax doesn't do exactly what people want, because it is a huge tax break at the top, and a huge tax increase in the middle if we want to be revenue neutral: The shape of the curve is very different from the current one, and there would be huge winners and losers. Nothing short of a 50% fixed rate will not be a huge tax break for us in the 1%. I don't know about you, but I don't think that the problem in the US system is that a family with two senior developers pays too many taxes. Therefore, on top of a UBI, the only thing that doesn't screw the middle class over is to maintain a progressive tax rate.
k-mcgrady 10y ago
Is there any data backing up the idea that it actually is a disincentive? 1. Anyone I know that has received benefits for being unemployed desperately wants to be employed again. 2. In the UK, unless things have changed, you can work up to 16 hours per week while receiving unemployment benefits and I believe the benefits you receive gradually falls with the amount of work you get paid for. 3. If you suddenly lose your job benefits aren't built so that you can maintain your current life style. You likely have car, insurance, and mortgage payments to make and the benefits you're receiving either just get you by or you have to renegotiate some of that debt. Not a situation you want to be in long-term.
- stale2002 10y ago
  I mean, if I was offered half of my current salary (which is, admittedly high, as a software engineer) for free under the condition that I don't work, I'd totally take that deal.
  - iopq 10y ago
    And you can, if you get fired.
    - cmurf 10y ago
      Uhh I think to get unemployment you have to be laid off (fired through no fault of your own). I'm not sure how you think he's getting paid 1/2 his current salary if he's fired, that sounds like $0.
      - iopq 10y ago
        Not true. If you get fired for not attending your job, you don't get unemployment. If you get fired for performance reasons, you get unemployment. My father got fired for "insubordination" aka his manager not liking him. He still got unemployment.
    - cellis 10y ago
      Unemployment is not quite going to be half of parent salary. More like 1/5 to 1/3 if they're lucky.
Jarwain 10y ago
It might be some implicit bias that I have, but I read that as minus, or without, penalties for amassing extra income. As in there are no penalties for amassing extra income. There is a double negative in there. I'm trying to find a more authoritative source on whether this is the case
ultraforce 10y ago
Would it be possible to do a modified system where they instead of losing the universal income unemployment benefits. There could be a system where the benefits are lowered in proportion to the income earned from jobs, that allows for those who are able to and want to work but are only able to find low paying jobs to have benefits that do not discourage them from doing work.
- zhemao 10y ago
  That's basically a negative income tax. That is, if you make below a certain amount, the government gives you money until your income reaches some base level.
  - Already__Taken 10y ago
    Does that have any negatives that basic income doesn't? To me it sounds like a direct subset of that UBI aims to achieve. So a solid stepping stone towards it.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      I support a prorated version, but the common criticism is that it's more open to fraud and harder to implement. I still think a prorated[1], guaranteed minimum income is better than a basic income. 1) something like reducing that payment by $0.50 per $1 earned as an example.
      - samatman 10y ago
        It's just an unnecessary wrinkle. Taxing earned income is the same as doing what you propose, but incurs higher coordination costs. Also, using your example, it's regressive taxation unless the base rate is higher than 50%.
        protomyth 10y ago
        I don't think paying everyone is a good idea and will encourage inflation to make the program useless. I'm fine with regressive when talking money given to you.
anotherarray 10y ago
Isn't that the whole point of the experiment? You need to understand how people react to the idea of "not doing anything and still get paid". Do they give up? Do they get depressed? Do they create things? Does entrepreneurship increase? Violence rate?... These are all interesting questions
- slavik81 10y ago
  If there are conditions, it's not universal. The distinguishing feature of universal basic income in comparison to traditional welfare was that it doesn't have the disincentives to work caused by means testing. If you add means testing back in, you've defeated the purpose.
  - ScottBurson 10y ago
    No. As I said previously [0], means testing is not the problem per se. The problem is a particular simplistic way of doing means testing, which is what mathematicians call a step function: below a certain income value you get 100% of the subsidy, and above it -- even very slightly above it -- you get zero. So there's a point where increasing your earned income very slightly results in a massive decrease in your total income. It's very easy to describe and administer such a subsidy, but it has a terrible bug, which is obvious and everyone has known about it for decades, but somehow we haven't mustered the will to fix it. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13202659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13202659
    - slavik81 10y ago
      You are advocating partial basic income, not universal basic income. Your argument has a place, but it's tangential to my point.
- InclinedPlane 10y ago
  > "not doing anything and still get paid" That's not what UBI is about at all. UBI is about getting paid no matter what you do. Which could be doing nothing. Or it could be studying or practicing or learning a new career or even working. The fact that UBI doesn't disincentivize spending ones time in a certain way (whether that's economically productive or not) is hugely important. This is an aspect of where there's a huge misunderstanding about UBI due to competing economic theories. There are some people, a lot of people, who believe very strongly that the economy is fundamentally coercive. And, more so, that coercive economies are natural, beneficial, and overall desirable. A lot of that thinking has certainly been baked in to a lot of conventional wisdom, culture, laws, and regulation in the economy of western countries for centuries. There are other people who believe that the economy is or at least can be fundamentally cooperative, and more importantly that a cooperative economy is more beneficial and desirable and no less natural than a coercive economy. And this is where UBI comes in, because UBI is essentially how you bootstrap a more cooperative economy. One where people work not because they are coerced to participate in toil due to the alternative being starvation and privation but instead because they enjoy the work or are fairly compensated for it and treated well.
drallison 10y ago
[deleted]
- barrkel 10y ago
  The explanation was right there in the comment: disincentive to work.
ptaipale 10y ago
The worst part of the unemployment benefit in Finland is not even the losing assistance if you take some job for a time. In the long run the payment will even out at least a little bit. It's the short run cash flow problem that really stops people from taking a job, as the jobseeker's allowance is cut immediately upon the employment office learning of someone having a job. It's already a problem that the benefits are such that net income from an actual job may be negative. But even with that, people might take a temporary job to get the experience. But they cannot afford it, because getting a job cuts the benefit payment instantly, and they can't afford to wait the time that it takes the bureaucracy to resume payments.
roflchoppa 10y ago
yeah its a little bit counter intuitive, I would think that it would not be financially stable to have the entire income of a population given to them. Rather it could be a lesser amount of money that would assist, rather than replace their current income.
sqrt 10y ago
I'm interested in hearing why it's a bad thing to disincentivize working more. Is it so bad for someone to not be working should they have enough money to live on? (I'm not sure if the benefits in this specific case are enough to live on, but I guess I'm thinking about the general principle.)
- dmurray 10y ago
  People working X hours a week are guaranteed to be spending those X hours producing something useful to society, or at least to their employer. People not working are not. Sure, some people who are not employed may be raising children or volunteering or doing something else beneficial to society,and encouraging them to work instead would be society's loss. But if we trust in the market economy, those people don't exist, and our real loss is people who are unproductive while on welfare who would be productive given a minimum wage job.
  - exstudent2 10y ago
    They don't even have to be raising children or volunteering to benefit society. As long as they spend the money that's given to them, the market benefits.
    - tgb 10y ago
      This argument doesn't add up. Scenario 0) I do nothing, get nothing. Scenario 1) The government gives me $1000 and I buy $1000 dollars worth of goods and services, so now the economy is better by the net gain of $1000 worth of transactions - i.e. the mutual benefits of trade. Scenario 2) I have a job, do my job and my employer pays me $1000 dollars. Then I spend that on $1000 worth of goods and services. Now the economy gets the benefits of $1000 worth of trade plus everything that I did for my employer, which is in excess of $1000 according to his calculation. You compared Scenario 1 to Scenario 0 and said that Scenario 1 is a win, but the context was 1 versus 2, where it's a negative. In scenario 2, the employer could be the government paying me to improve the roads, for example, instead of the government handing me the money they would have paid me. In which case the difference is the improved roads.
revelation 10y ago
If you are not unemployed, why would you receive unemployment benefits? The problem with this particular restriction is jobs that don't pay sufficiently, have wildly varying hours or are pretend part-time to stay under some benefits threshold. The solution can not be subsidize exploitative employers who don't provide a livable wage through UB. These jobs are a net cost to society and plain should not exist.
INTPenis 10y ago
Important to note too is that in Sweden, and likely other scandinavian countries, you can find a part time job and get part time unecmployment benefits. As long as it's within the law, on paper. If you're taking undocumented work then you're also taking a risk where you might lose your benefits if found out. I think maybe there is a larger chance for undocumented work in countries like the US. I have an impression that there is a more prevalent culture of cash-in-hand jobs due to the sheer size of the country. So maybe you react more to the quote than I would because I've always had documented work, whether it was 25%, 50% or 80% it was always documented and known to the government what I was doing so I could always apply for the necessary benefits I was eligible for.
- Eyght 10y ago
  I know that at least some municipalities in Sweden allows for earnings equal to ~25% of the social welfare payment, before it's reduced. So you can earn about $250 extra per month and get to keep it, instead of being stuck with the same income. Cheap way to provide extra incentive for people to actually get out and work. Even if it's only for a few hours a week.
phkahler 10y ago
I have yet to see any mathematical model of how Ubi is supposed to work.
velodrome 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax Negative income tax (more emphasis) + basic income (less emphasis) would be a better system. A negative income tax would encourage people to work. Basic income by itself may just remove some barriers to working but may not result in a change (basic income > costs).
- IgorPartola 10y ago
  If a society produces so much value that everyone can be provided with a basic income that is greater than cost of living, why is that a bad thing?
  - TheProbabilist 10y ago
    I'm positive that this answer won't be appetizing if you belong to the dyed in the wool, coastal progressive contingent, heavily represented here on HN. Given the recent political developments (not just here in the U.S. but across the world including Europe), it is high time we speak frankly and not say things couched in vain pleasantries, suited to people who'd rather not hear or say anything disagreeable, to keep up appearances. Having said that, if you want the honest truth as to why _some_ people may have an objection I'm willing to explain. People who are unlucky to be earning just enough to be excluded in one way or the other, from these UBI handouts ( which already happen in disguised means and forms, but more on that later [1] ) but not enough - from their wages & other sources of income - to be living a comfortable life will find themselves asking how is it that suddenly a) their kids cannot get into those choice daycare centers which weren't so crammed only a few years ago b) the economy classes on most flights are filled with the riffraff & people from outside of the income/social classes they're accustomed to c) their favorite restaurants are always booked or have lines out the door ( a perennial theme in SF ) [2] d) the rent pressure is greater for a smaller inventory of listings in the desirable neighborhoods e) their friends cannot afford to socialize as frequently as they once did ( or worse, have moved to a different part of the country simply because it is no longer affordable to remain ) due to the same wage pressures In other words people are mostly fine with any entitlements to the poor & disadvantaged as long as it doesn't threaten their way of life or become a competitive element to the comforts & privileges they are accustomed to. Once those things are threatened people find it difficult to accommodate those things, even if it makes numerical sense - as in say an universal extra $10,000 bump to _absolutely everyone_ regardless of income class ( if that is what they even _mean_ when they say UBI; I doubt it is ) might only mean that Person X can send his kids to a much more exclusive summer camp every year but now that same bump in income means more crowded classrooms for the same kids during the rest of the year because Person Y can now afford to send his or her kids to the school for privileged kids. More directly - and less politely - people don't want a handout-receiver ( and how you define that term depends on your political slant and can mean anyone from a lowly UBI claimant to a loftily paid city worker in any large progressive city[2] ) suddenly being able to afford the same niceties of life that they see themselves slaving at their 9-to-5s for. Economists and policy makers can couch it in clever speak but it really is that simple. [1] S.F. spends record $241 million on homeless, can’t track results http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record... [2] Report: San Francisco has the highest density of restaurants in America, by far http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2012/08/01/report-san-francisco-has-the-highest-density-of-restaurants-in-america-by-far/ http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2012/08/01/report-san-f... [3] This San Francisco Janitor Made More Than $270,000 Last Year http://time.com/4555692/san-francisco-bart-janitor-salary/ http://time.com/4555692/san-francisco-bart-janitor-salary/
tn13 10y ago
> Jobless people generally cannot earn additional income while collecting unemployment benefits or they risk losing that assistance. This is modern day slavery. There is nothing universal about this. It if was universal income than you must get that money irrespective of what choices you make in life. Just because you are getting money from government, government puts up a chain around your neck and says you cant work. In USA such people might turn to underground economy such as drug peddling.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
EGreg 10y ago
Why should we care about a disincentive to work more? It's like that trope about welfare recipients all being drug addicts. Or that taxing the rich will make them not want to work. What motivates people to work is MASTERY, AUTONOMY and PURPOSE. This is very different from the profit motive, and is why people contribute to open source and science. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc And anyway, why in the 21st century does everyone need to work? Why should wages be the primary mechanism by which living wages trickle down to the plebes? McDonalds will soon cut its workforce. So will Uber. Thanks to automation. If you are jealous that someone somewhere is receiving free stuff, realize how much free stuff you have just by being alive in the 21st century! If you are upset that you'd be taxed for the free stuff -- then make sure that we develop systems to tax machines. Yes you heard me, start taxing the machines. If people were more free to choose what to do with their time, they'd probably spend more time with their family and study more and contribute more knowledge to society. Instead of working a dead-end job at McDonalds. If you want to read more about the economics of this, I wrote an article: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=185 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=185

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nickff 10y ago

And taking a job once should not permanently disqualify someone from long-term aid programs like social security.

TillE 10y ago

Means-tested programs are the epitome of wasteful government bureaucracy. It's never the right way to "compromise". If we can't sell straight UBI, then something like universal food stamps would be a good first step: https://web.archive.org/web/20160321083817/http://mattbruenig.com/2013/04/10/just-give-everyone-food-stamps/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160321083817/http://mattbrueni...

dfraser992 10y ago
I am reminded of an article I read years ago (sorry, no reference) about a low income family in Chicago (I think) during the Reagan era. The family had saved up a bit of money to send their kid to college, but some bureaucratic org found out. It was responsible for handling their benefits and because the total amount of assets the family had was over an acceptable limit, they cut out _all_ benefits to the family. Till the bank account went down to acceptable levels. Way to go towards helping people help themselves, encouraging middle class values, responsibility, yadda yadda, all the usual stuff Republicans blather about but don't actually care about.
- tgarma1234 10y ago
  I remember that story and it might have been during the first Clinton campaign in the 90s or anyway one of those "Welfare Queen" stories meant to make public assistance seem like a shorthand for "laziness". There are asset tests for assistance and you can see them broken down state by state here: http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/latest/measure/asset-limits-in-public-benefit-programs http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/latest/measure/ass...
- briandear 10y ago
  Explain to me why my tax dollars should pay for other people again? I am not sure I understand why my labor must pay for others against my wishes. If I want to donate to charity, I will. Taxes should be used to pay for shared resources (roads, police, military,) but paying other people's living expenses? No thanks. America has poor and unemployed, yet Democrats seem to have no problem with illegal immigration which reduces the ability for those poor and unemployed to gets jobs.
  - taxtaker 10y ago
    > Explain to me why my tax dollars should pay for other people again? Umm, because we don't want them to die? And society as a whole benefits from it? > I am not sure I understand why my labor must pay for others against my wishes. What gave you the idea you get to decide what taxes are used for?
  - lastyearman 10y ago
    Few reasons come to mind: The way capitalism is designed is that not everyone can have a job. So you pay the poor not to starve and come loot your house. Also, I believe, there was a study suggesting that more equal society is better for everyone involved, including you. Poverty also inhibits education and I suppose you can figure out why uneducated or lowly educated society is bad.
    - vixen99 10y ago
      Capitalism is 'designed'? So who were the 'Marx and Engels' of capitalism when folk were trading with each other out of their caves?
pvdebbe 10y ago
Also a huge problem is that you get this living support based on your income, and it has no proper upper bounds. One could receive hundreds if not a thousand euro in extra support if they chose to live in a costly neighborhood (namely, central Helsinki). Even more of a disincentivizing factor to consider here.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  It used to be even more weird. About 20 years ago, when our kids were small, I was simultaneously in two groups: 1) High income: My personal gross income was among the top 20 % of earners. Thus, high taxes. 2) Poverty: My family's net income after housing expenses was below the threshold of the last-resort income support. All it took was having three small children, wife not working as the youngest was a newborn thus only the minimal maternity allowance, Helsinki region housing costs and the progressive taxation of "high earners". The way to get out of it was to take a job abroad for a while. But Finland is my home, even if I hate some parts of the welfare state politics, so I came back.
ScottBurson 10y ago
I'm not necessarily opposed to means-testing; for example, progressive income tax rates can be seen as a form of means-testing, and I think they're a good thing. What I care about is that the function from income earned to income (including subsidy) received be monotonic. Again, the income tax system (at least in the US) is carefully designed to have this property: when you make enough more money to move into a higher tax bracket, that higher rate is applied only to the amount of your income in excess of the lower bound at which that bracket applies. So the total amount of tax never jumps discontinuously, even though the marginal rate increases. Even though you keep less of your next dollar of earnings the more you make, there's never a point at which earning the next dollar will leave you with less money after tax. The same should be true even if you're receiving a subsidy. That's all I'm saying.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  The combination of a fixed-amount UBI and a fixed-rate tax does exactly what people want. The marginal tax rate is completely unwavering for everyone and the effective tax rate ((tax paid - UBI)/income)) follows a nice continuous progressive curve. > Even though you keep less of your next dollar of earnings the more you make, there's never a point at which earning the next dollar will leave you with less money after tax. The problem is that's not the only thing you want. You also don't want marginal rates of 75%+ for low and middle income people. It's not only that taking a $20K/year job shouldn't cost you $21K/year in benefits, it's that it shouldn't cost you $15K/year in benefits while you now incur more transportation and childcare expenses.
  - hibikir 10y ago
    A fixed amount UBI and a fixed rate tax doesn't do exactly what people want, because it is a huge tax break at the top, and a huge tax increase in the middle if we want to be revenue neutral: The shape of the curve is very different from the current one, and there would be huge winners and losers. Nothing short of a 50% fixed rate will not be a huge tax break for us in the 1%. I don't know about you, but I don't think that the problem in the US system is that a family with two senior developers pays too many taxes. Therefore, on top of a UBI, the only thing that doesn't screw the middle class over is to maintain a progressive tax rate.

k-mcgrady 10y ago

Is there any data backing up the idea that it actually is a disincentive? 1. Anyone I know that has received benefits for being unemployed desperately wants to be employed again. 2. In the UK, unless things have changed, you can work up to 16 hours per week while receiving unemployment benefits and I believe the benefits you receive gradually falls with the amount of work you get paid for. 3. If you suddenly lose your job benefits aren't built so that you can maintain your current life style. You likely have car, insurance, and mortgage payments to make and the benefits you're receiving either just get you by or you have to renegotiate some of that debt. Not a situation you want to be in long-term.

stale2002 10y ago
I mean, if I was offered half of my current salary (which is, admittedly high, as a software engineer) for free under the condition that I don't work, I'd totally take that deal.
- iopq 10y ago
  And you can, if you get fired.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    Uhh I think to get unemployment you have to be laid off (fired through no fault of your own). I'm not sure how you think he's getting paid 1/2 his current salary if he's fired, that sounds like $0.
    - iopq 10y ago
      Not true. If you get fired for not attending your job, you don't get unemployment. If you get fired for performance reasons, you get unemployment. My father got fired for "insubordination" aka his manager not liking him. He still got unemployment.
  - cellis 10y ago
    Unemployment is not quite going to be half of parent salary. More like 1/5 to 1/3 if they're lucky.

Jarwain 10y ago

It might be some implicit bias that I have, but I read that as minus, or without, penalties for amassing extra income. As in there are no penalties for amassing extra income. There is a double negative in there. I'm trying to find a more authoritative source on whether this is the case

ultraforce 10y ago

Would it be possible to do a modified system where they instead of losing the universal income unemployment benefits. There could be a system where the benefits are lowered in proportion to the income earned from jobs, that allows for those who are able to and want to work but are only able to find low paying jobs to have benefits that do not discourage them from doing work.

zhemao 10y ago
That's basically a negative income tax. That is, if you make below a certain amount, the government gives you money until your income reaches some base level.
- Already__Taken 10y ago
  Does that have any negatives that basic income doesn't? To me it sounds like a direct subset of that UBI aims to achieve. So a solid stepping stone towards it.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    I support a prorated version, but the common criticism is that it's more open to fraud and harder to implement. I still think a prorated[1], guaranteed minimum income is better than a basic income. 1) something like reducing that payment by $0.50 per $1 earned as an example.
    - samatman 10y ago
      It's just an unnecessary wrinkle. Taxing earned income is the same as doing what you propose, but incurs higher coordination costs. Also, using your example, it's regressive taxation unless the base rate is higher than 50%.
      - protomyth 10y ago
        I don't think paying everyone is a good idea and will encourage inflation to make the program useless. I'm fine with regressive when talking money given to you.

anotherarray 10y ago

Isn't that the whole point of the experiment? You need to understand how people react to the idea of "not doing anything and still get paid". Do they give up? Do they get depressed? Do they create things? Does entrepreneurship increase? Violence rate?... These are all interesting questions

slavik81 10y ago
If there are conditions, it's not universal. The distinguishing feature of universal basic income in comparison to traditional welfare was that it doesn't have the disincentives to work caused by means testing. If you add means testing back in, you've defeated the purpose.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  No. As I said previously [0], means testing is not the problem per se. The problem is a particular simplistic way of doing means testing, which is what mathematicians call a step function: below a certain income value you get 100% of the subsidy, and above it -- even very slightly above it -- you get zero. So there's a point where increasing your earned income very slightly results in a massive decrease in your total income. It's very easy to describe and administer such a subsidy, but it has a terrible bug, which is obvious and everyone has known about it for decades, but somehow we haven't mustered the will to fix it. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13202659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13202659
  - slavik81 10y ago
    You are advocating partial basic income, not universal basic income. Your argument has a place, but it's tangential to my point.
InclinedPlane 10y ago
> "not doing anything and still get paid" That's not what UBI is about at all. UBI is about getting paid no matter what you do. Which could be doing nothing. Or it could be studying or practicing or learning a new career or even working. The fact that UBI doesn't disincentivize spending ones time in a certain way (whether that's economically productive or not) is hugely important. This is an aspect of where there's a huge misunderstanding about UBI due to competing economic theories. There are some people, a lot of people, who believe very strongly that the economy is fundamentally coercive. And, more so, that coercive economies are natural, beneficial, and overall desirable. A lot of that thinking has certainly been baked in to a lot of conventional wisdom, culture, laws, and regulation in the economy of western countries for centuries. There are other people who believe that the economy is or at least can be fundamentally cooperative, and more importantly that a cooperative economy is more beneficial and desirable and no less natural than a coercive economy. And this is where UBI comes in, because UBI is essentially how you bootstrap a more cooperative economy. One where people work not because they are coerced to participate in toil due to the alternative being starvation and privation but instead because they enjoy the work or are fairly compensated for it and treated well.

drallison 10y ago

[deleted]

barrkel 10y ago
The explanation was right there in the comment: disincentive to work.

ptaipale 10y ago

The worst part of the unemployment benefit in Finland is not even the losing assistance if you take some job for a time. In the long run the payment will even out at least a little bit. It's the short run cash flow problem that really stops people from taking a job, as the jobseeker's allowance is cut immediately upon the employment office learning of someone having a job. It's already a problem that the benefits are such that net income from an actual job may be negative. But even with that, people might take a temporary job to get the experience. But they cannot afford it, because getting a job cuts the benefit payment instantly, and they can't afford to wait the time that it takes the bureaucracy to resume payments.

roflchoppa 10y ago

yeah its a little bit counter intuitive, I would think that it would not be financially stable to have the entire income of a population given to them. Rather it could be a lesser amount of money that would assist, rather than replace their current income.

sqrt 10y ago

I'm interested in hearing why it's a bad thing to disincentivize working more. Is it so bad for someone to not be working should they have enough money to live on? (I'm not sure if the benefits in this specific case are enough to live on, but I guess I'm thinking about the general principle.)

dmurray 10y ago
People working X hours a week are guaranteed to be spending those X hours producing something useful to society, or at least to their employer. People not working are not. Sure, some people who are not employed may be raising children or volunteering or doing something else beneficial to society,and encouraging them to work instead would be society's loss. But if we trust in the market economy, those people don't exist, and our real loss is people who are unproductive while on welfare who would be productive given a minimum wage job.
- exstudent2 10y ago
  They don't even have to be raising children or volunteering to benefit society. As long as they spend the money that's given to them, the market benefits.
  - tgb 10y ago
    This argument doesn't add up. Scenario 0) I do nothing, get nothing. Scenario 1) The government gives me $1000 and I buy $1000 dollars worth of goods and services, so now the economy is better by the net gain of $1000 worth of transactions - i.e. the mutual benefits of trade. Scenario 2) I have a job, do my job and my employer pays me $1000 dollars. Then I spend that on $1000 worth of goods and services. Now the economy gets the benefits of $1000 worth of trade plus everything that I did for my employer, which is in excess of $1000 according to his calculation. You compared Scenario 1 to Scenario 0 and said that Scenario 1 is a win, but the context was 1 versus 2, where it's a negative. In scenario 2, the employer could be the government paying me to improve the roads, for example, instead of the government handing me the money they would have paid me. In which case the difference is the improved roads.

revelation 10y ago

If you are not unemployed, why would you receive unemployment benefits? The problem with this particular restriction is jobs that don't pay sufficiently, have wildly varying hours or are pretend part-time to stay under some benefits threshold. The solution can not be subsidize exploitative employers who don't provide a livable wage through UB. These jobs are a net cost to society and plain should not exist.

INTPenis 10y ago

Important to note too is that in Sweden, and likely other scandinavian countries, you can find a part time job and get part time unecmployment benefits. As long as it's within the law, on paper. If you're taking undocumented work then you're also taking a risk where you might lose your benefits if found out. I think maybe there is a larger chance for undocumented work in countries like the US. I have an impression that there is a more prevalent culture of cash-in-hand jobs due to the sheer size of the country. So maybe you react more to the quote than I would because I've always had documented work, whether it was 25%, 50% or 80% it was always documented and known to the government what I was doing so I could always apply for the necessary benefits I was eligible for.

Eyght 10y ago
I know that at least some municipalities in Sweden allows for earnings equal to ~25% of the social welfare payment, before it's reduced. So you can earn about $250 extra per month and get to keep it, instead of being stuck with the same income. Cheap way to provide extra incentive for people to actually get out and work. Even if it's only for a few hours a week.

phkahler 10y ago

I have yet to see any mathematical model of how Ubi is supposed to work.

velodrome 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax Negative income tax (more emphasis) + basic income (less emphasis) would be a better system. A negative income tax would encourage people to work. Basic income by itself may just remove some barriers to working but may not result in a change (basic income > costs).

IgorPartola 10y ago
If a society produces so much value that everyone can be provided with a basic income that is greater than cost of living, why is that a bad thing?
- TheProbabilist 10y ago
  I'm positive that this answer won't be appetizing if you belong to the dyed in the wool, coastal progressive contingent, heavily represented here on HN. Given the recent political developments (not just here in the U.S. but across the world including Europe), it is high time we speak frankly and not say things couched in vain pleasantries, suited to people who'd rather not hear or say anything disagreeable, to keep up appearances. Having said that, if you want the honest truth as to why _some_ people may have an objection I'm willing to explain. People who are unlucky to be earning just enough to be excluded in one way or the other, from these UBI handouts ( which already happen in disguised means and forms, but more on that later [1] ) but not enough - from their wages & other sources of income - to be living a comfortable life will find themselves asking how is it that suddenly a) their kids cannot get into those choice daycare centers which weren't so crammed only a few years ago b) the economy classes on most flights are filled with the riffraff & people from outside of the income/social classes they're accustomed to c) their favorite restaurants are always booked or have lines out the door ( a perennial theme in SF ) [2] d) the rent pressure is greater for a smaller inventory of listings in the desirable neighborhoods e) their friends cannot afford to socialize as frequently as they once did ( or worse, have moved to a different part of the country simply because it is no longer affordable to remain ) due to the same wage pressures In other words people are mostly fine with any entitlements to the poor & disadvantaged as long as it doesn't threaten their way of life or become a competitive element to the comforts & privileges they are accustomed to. Once those things are threatened people find it difficult to accommodate those things, even if it makes numerical sense - as in say an universal extra $10,000 bump to _absolutely everyone_ regardless of income class ( if that is what they even _mean_ when they say UBI; I doubt it is ) might only mean that Person X can send his kids to a much more exclusive summer camp every year but now that same bump in income means more crowded classrooms for the same kids during the rest of the year because Person Y can now afford to send his or her kids to the school for privileged kids. More directly - and less politely - people don't want a handout-receiver ( and how you define that term depends on your political slant and can mean anyone from a lowly UBI claimant to a loftily paid city worker in any large progressive city[2] ) suddenly being able to afford the same niceties of life that they see themselves slaving at their 9-to-5s for. Economists and policy makers can couch it in clever speak but it really is that simple. [1] S.F. spends record $241 million on homeless, can’t track results http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record... [2] Report: San Francisco has the highest density of restaurants in America, by far http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2012/08/01/report-san-francisco-has-the-highest-density-of-restaurants-in-america-by-far/ http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2012/08/01/report-san-f... [3] This San Francisco Janitor Made More Than $270,000 Last Year http://time.com/4555692/san-francisco-bart-janitor-salary/ http://time.com/4555692/san-francisco-bart-janitor-salary/

tn13 10y ago

> Jobless people generally cannot earn additional income while collecting unemployment benefits or they risk losing that assistance. This is modern day slavery. There is nothing universal about this. It if was universal income than you must get that money irrespective of what choices you make in life. Just because you are getting money from government, government puts up a chain around your neck and says you cant work. In USA such people might turn to underground economy such as drug peddling.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

EGreg 10y ago

Why should we care about a disincentive to work more? It's like that trope about welfare recipients all being drug addicts. Or that taxing the rich will make them not want to work. What motivates people to work is MASTERY, AUTONOMY and PURPOSE. This is very different from the profit motive, and is why people contribute to open source and science. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc And anyway, why in the 21st century does everyone need to work? Why should wages be the primary mechanism by which living wages trickle down to the plebes? McDonalds will soon cut its workforce. So will Uber. Thanks to automation. If you are jealous that someone somewhere is receiving free stuff, realize how much free stuff you have just by being alive in the 21st century! If you are upset that you'd be taxed for the free stuff -- then make sure that we develop systems to tax machines. Yes you heard me, start taxing the machines. If people were more free to choose what to do with their time, they'd probably spend more time with their family and study more and contribute more knowledge to society. Instead of working a dead-end job at McDonalds. If you want to read more about the economics of this, I wrote an article: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=185 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=185