123 ms·

Basic Income Research Proposal

• Kevin_S 9y ago
  1k people getting 1k a month for 5 years = $60 million. At the end of the day, an expensive group. Really impressed by the ambition here, and hope for great success for the project. Basic Income research will be vital in the future when it actually becomes a genuine piece of public policy. Although I have little faith it will be used effectively by politicians/decision makers.
  • wavefunction 9y ago
    I too am impressed by the scope of this effort. I hope it provides some meaningful and insightful data either way, though I'm partial to a positive result from this effort.
  • mholmes680 9y ago
    impressive, but i feel like this is why we invented computer models and have technology (maybe) to start returning immediate results. We're basically saying here that $60M (plus the other group) is better spent to see what weights to give to models to see how UBI scales-up rather than spending it to run a full gamut of Test Cases through the models and figuring out which outputs to motivate people to do with the money. I mean, why are we spending money to figure out what people will spend the money on when we can already envision all the possibilities. Or am i wrong, and no one has modeled this yet??
    • rory096 9y ago
      How do you model a population's (or even am individual's) innate preferences and behavior when their income patterns and ability to spend change? You're essentially describing the economic calculation problem. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
  • tmalsburg2 9y ago
    Sorry for being negative but as someone who is paid for desingning and conducting experiments I have to say that this experiment is very poorly designed. (Many of the flaws have been discussed here and at previous occasions, no need to repeat them.) The fact that they are spending $60M on this makes me sad. So much great research could be funded with this kind of money.
• cabalamat 9y ago
  > 1,000 will receive $1,000 per month for up to 5 years What does this mean? Is it going to be 5 years or not? Will different participants get it for a different amount of time? Will they know when it is going to stop?
  • ianai 9y ago
    That’s a hugely important piece of information. Granted, if it is assured for any length of time it’s practically much more assured than the usual job.
  • dsp1234 9y ago
    From the linked proposal: "We propose two treatment arms, one of which will receive the basic income payments for 3 years while the other receives a 5-year guarantee."[0] [0] - https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599c23b2e6f2e1aeb8d35ec6/t/59c3188c4c326da3497c355f/1505958039366/YCR-Basic-Income-Proposal.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599c23b2e6f2e1aeb8d35...
• adenadel 9y ago
  I hope many of the study participants are living in a low COL area. If the $1000 per month covers most if not all of your expenses it gives someone a much greater opportunity to pursue something the can really improve their life rather than just a nice boon on top of their current income. Of course, this is more of an "I hope this improves peoples' lives" rather than considering how best to design the experiment.
• craigcannon 9y ago
  hey! elizabeth rhodes, the basic income research director at ycr, is keeping an eye on this thread and will reply to questions if you have them.
  • taw321 9y ago
    this is not a question. i know there are tons of those that say no to basic income (just glance the comments here), yet if i was eligible (different country) i would have applied right away and quit my job. i have a few side projects and some of them just weeks and months away from release, i could return the money with interest if things go as planned (maybe a contract). banks are aggressive, i can not ask my family, kickstarter and similar are too visible, ventures are so noisy and my goals and the respect for the people in general not aligned with them. this would be ideal because it is quite relaxed. here you go, an ideal setup!
• koolba 9y ago
  > We tentatively plan to randomly select 3,000 individuals across two US states to participate in the study: 1,000 will receive $1,000 per month for up to 5 years, and 2,000 will receive $50 per month and serve as a control group for comparison. So obvious question on many minds, "Where do I sign up for the free money?" Also, will it be randomly selected or will the selection criteria factor in cost of living, current financial situation, education, etc? And where is the potentially $66 million dollars for this coming from? EDIT: On their FAQ[1] I found the answer to my first question: >> Can I be a study participant? > Unfortunately, no. It is important that participants are randomly selected into the study. [1]: https://basicincome.ycr.org/faqs https://basicincome.ycr.org/faqs
  • Jemaclus 9y ago
    It says in the quote that you quoted that it will be randomly selected individuals across two states. ;)
    • koolba 9y ago
      I meant the split between $1,000 or $50. It's not clear (to me at least...) if the randomness applies to choosing the original 3000 people selected to take part in the study, the bucketizing of them afterwards into 1000/2000 groups, or both.
    • RhysU 9y ago
      So how do we lobby for our state?
  • notahacker 9y ago
    YC probably has the contacts to find $66m of philanthropic cash. Though if you wanted to find out whether UBI is a functional improvement on current systems as opposed to whether people like receiving free money from the SV elite, you'd need to test the funding system by raising taxes by much more than $1k per month on all the higher income recipients and eliminating most govt benefits for the lower income recipients. Of course, you might find fewer people willing to participate in the study then.
• ph0rque 9y ago
  Curious as to how the control group monthly amount ($50) was decided upon. Was it basically an incentive for those selected to participate?
  • Digory 9y ago
    I wonder if it has anything to do with the $600 1099 floor. Staying below that might encourage under-reporting on taxes; staying above that gives the researchers pretty reliable addresses and SSNs from participants.
  • jessriedel 9y ago
    I would speculate yes. (1) You want subjects in the control group to be incentivized to maintain contact with the researchers throughout the study and be willing to spend time answering their questions. (2) Whenever feasible, you want all subjects in a research study to be better off than not participating in the study. (3) It also controls for some minor confounding effects like "gets in the habit of going to the bank monthly and cashing a check".
• influx 9y ago
  At what point does the government controlling your income start to impede personal freedom? Wouldn't any politician campaigning to increase the basic income be almost automatically elected?
  • ianai 9y ago
    Economists largely consider payments like this to be the best way to enact policies. It gives people more options instead of trying to control through legal pressures.
    • chimeracoder 9y ago
      > Economists largely consider payments like this to be the best way to enact policies. It gives people more options instead of trying to control through legal pressures. That's not true at all, and in fact, the last time a large number of economists were surveyed about a proposal, the response was overwhelmingly in opposition: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/universal-basic-income http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/universal-basic-income Many economists would agree that, ceteris paribus, cash is "better" than an equivalent amount of earmarked money in most situations, because cash is more flexible. But that's a very narrow statement that isn't applicable here, because it's assuming that the set of people receiving the money would be the exact same (it's not, by the definition of "universal"), and it's also assuming that there are no other external consequences to the proposal (another topic which is, at best, debatable). So even that point of agreement among economists isn't relevant to this proposal.
      • Jemaclus 9y ago
        Citation needed (from both of you).
        • SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
          I can't talk to the claims about economists but I can tell you that Friedman and people across the political spectrum agreed that this was good public policy. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-are...
• imh 9y ago
  Here's a more in depth version of the proposal https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599c23b2e6f2e1aeb8d35ec6/t/59c3188c4c326da3497c355f/1505958039366/YCR-Basic-Income-Proposal.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599c23b2e6f2e1aeb8d35... It answers many of the questions people are asking here.
• demircancelebi 9y ago
  Wow. Looks like they'll spend a lot of money for this research. Congrats to everyone involved! I thought basic income was about a time where AI would take most of the jobs, and everything would be far cheaper thanks to automation. I cannot understand how it'll help you not work in the current world. Because working part-time might not be an option for many, even if they are ready to forgo the money. We also have not built that automated world yet, so although $1000/m certainly helps, it is still not enough to pay for a comfortable life in the US. Maybe someone more informed on the subject can enlighten me.
  • C4stor 9y ago
    For what I know, basic income is not about allowing people to not work, but instead, push people to work by allowing them to take risks by trying to work in a field they actually want to work. Starting this wood-carving artisanat shop that you're insanely good at looks a lot more promising when you know you'll have a bit of money to eat at the end of the month :D A huge hope of defensors of basic income is that it may pay itself by the economy boost it gives, and won't just add $1000 to every rent bill in the area !
  • goodcanadian 9y ago
    Because it is not meant to "help you not work." It is meant to ensure a basic minimum whether you work or not. It is also not meant to "pay for a comfortable life." It is meant to prevent you from starving. For the sake of argument, however, as you say, going part time is not an option for many people. For the lowest paid jobs, on the other hand, going full time is often not an option. The jobs at the bottom tend to be part time with no benefits and no guaranteed hours. These are the people who will be most benefited by a basic income. If they are additionally stuck in a hostile work environment, the basic income may give them enough cushion to quit the job rather than hanging on just so they don't starve. It may also give them enough money to take time off work and go to school in order to earn a slightly better income. And, if they are laid off through no fault of their own, it may allow them to eat until they can find another job.
• maxerickson 9y ago
  So the first steps to a basic income are capital controls and a VAT, right? I wonder how long it will be until USA is ready for that stuff.
  • corford 9y ago
    Don't most states in the US already have sales tax (which is effectively VAT by another name)?
• superlopuh 9y ago
  How will the 1000 a month be treated in a fiscal sense? I have close to no knowledge about the US tax system, but I would guess it has some impact. Also, will be interesting to see the difference in results from this study to ones done in countries where healthcare is free or subsidised.
  • wavefunction 9y ago
    The effective tax rate an individual would face depends on how much income an individual derives from other sources during this time in addition to the basic income, along with their household demographics (number of children, marriage situation). By itself with no other income sources the individual would fall below the US federal poverty level[0] by $60 and would likely qualify for some Earned Income Credits[1] as well as subsidized health care. Adding children or a spouse (especially a working one) will crank the tax rate up or down. Then there is an entire universe of tax complexity having to do with credits and penalties an individual or family might face. [0]https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit
• benstrumental 9y ago
  > First, we just wrapped up a one-year feasibility study in Oakland Are the results of this feasibility study publicly available?
  • jcmoscon 9y ago
    Yes, you can go and read about communism and how 100s of millions died while it was being implemented
    • LoSboccacc 9y ago
      Basic income is not the same as forced equality. I do fear that basic income will only result in hyperinflation, but it's hard to effectively estimate the impact without actually doing some trial run.
    • katastic 9y ago
      That gave me a serious chuckle. It was so unexpected. Thank you.
    • dang 9y ago
      Please don't take HN into ideological flamewar. It never improves things, and is always the same. The site guidelines are specifically written to guard against this: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• roymurdock 9y ago
  Really awesome to see this coming together. 2 q's - how was the $1,000 per month figure calculated, and will you be deploying in a small, low-income, isolated community where local inflation might occur, a large metropolitan community, distributed randomly across the 2 states? Interesting problems to consider in this study design!
  • roymurdock 9y ago
    Found the answer to my sampling question: "As described above, we will select areas for the study by taking a stratified random sample of Census tracts in large regions within the two states where median household income does not exceed the area median income. After sampling tracts, we will randomly select addresses within tracts from USPS DSF (a sampling frame of all addresses). We will screen selected addresses for eligibility, ultimately enrolling no more than one percent of individuals within a Census tract. We may use available administrative data eliminate as many ineligible households from the sampling frame as possible to cut down on recruitment and enrollment costs, but we are examining the reliability of this data during the pilot. We are contracting with a survey research firm with extensive experience fielding national studies to assist with sampling, manage recruitment, and conduct in- person enrollment and baseline surveys." To my thinking it would have been interesting to study the possible inflation effects (treat the isolated community as representative for the whole country) but I'm sure there is a good reason/past research for structuring the sample this way.
• adangert 9y ago
  You know this might be speculative, but I feel like a basic income applied to a national allows that population to act more like an ant hive. In the sense that only 3% of the population is actually doing the real hard work, but this is a healthy paradigm, and is much better than forcing individuals who shouldn't be doing the work they currently are to pursue things they actually care about, such as taking care of loved ones, or some creative pursuit. Jobs such as these don't pay much, but are equally valuable to society.
  • JOnAgain 9y ago
    A lot more video games will be played
    • mtinkerhess 9y ago
      As a game developer I'm 100% okay with that!
    • MarkPNeyer 9y ago
      Much better than, say, working the TSA, a jobs program based on invading privacy under the ridiculous exaggerated thread of terrorism. I WISH those people would just stay home and play video games.
    • wavefunction 9y ago
      Maybe more twitch streaming, or more elite gaming as a result? I find that whole economy rather strange but then I remember that a lot of "work" these days is just shuffling imaginary money around.
    • zanny 9y ago
      Maybe for a year. Then people will want meaning in their lives and would seek meaningful productive things to do that they want to do. The reason people right now love gaming so much and often to an unhealthy degree is because its an escape from a life they don't like living but have no choice in because they are chained to a job to survive.
• vasco 9y ago
  I would speculate that any end date on this scenario will invalidate results. What a person does if it is guaranteed a job for life vs 5 years is wildly different, as you'll need to make sure when those 5 years are up, you'll be ready to enter the job market again, etc. I believe the same will happen with basic income. If we want to study where people gravitate to more fulfilling jobs, feel happier and so on, you need to guarantee them that stability forever. Otherwise people will just rationalize that they got some free money for a while and will not behave in the same way.
  • 11thEarlOfMar 9y ago
    Since they have a control group, they can at least learn how people's behavior changes when they get free money for 5 years. 5 years is enough for going back to school, getting retrained, moving to a new location for better work prospects, etc. They can't claim to know how people will behave if it is a lifetime, but evaluating some change is better than evaluating none.
  • laser 9y ago
    If the government guarantees a basic income, you're really only guaranteed (at best) until the next election cycle. Just recently, seven years after its passing, the ACA was nearly reverted, which would have kicked millions of people off government-subsidized health insurance plans.
    • xienze 9y ago
      In the case of BI, I disagree. Politicians will see this for what it really is -- the most direct way to buy votes (by promising increased BI). It would be quite popular with both parties, I'm sure.
      • bduerst 9y ago
        One party's platform is built on the fear of socialism - they will most definitely oppose this and use it to get votes, but by egging it publicly.
• liquidise 9y ago
  One factor that would be lost in a controlled, basic income test is the inflation effect. Implemented on a national scale, cost inflation of basic consumer needs is a near certainty. On a controlled test of 1000 people inflation would be nearly impossible to achieve without localizing the test to an absurd degree. I could see this test could serving as a dataset for calculating anticipated inflation rates on a national scale. If money is sent out via a trackable card instead of raw cash, you could begin to extrapolate where this basic income spends would be going, be it consumer products, bills, etc.
  • notahacker 9y ago
    I like the thought behind the trackable card idea, but most participants are going to have other income and savings too, so what you're really learning from them is what spending they're willing to share with people who've given them money to track how it's spent. Even if it was people's entire household budget being tracked, it'd be difficult to draw too many inferences from spending in the absence of price pressures driven by everyone else having UBI too.
  • eric_b 9y ago
    Yep, basic consumer staple price inflation is something I never see addressed with any satisfaction when people are talking about UBI. Housing prices and rent will assuredly rise proportionally to the basic income amount if this were to be implemented nationally, so wouldn't pumping all this money in basically just have the effect of increasing inequality?
    • billmalarky 9y ago
      >Housing prices and rent will assuredly rise proportionally to the basic income amount if this were to be implemented nationally, so wouldn't pumping all this money in basically just have the effect of increasing inequality? Unlikely. UBI removes the connection between location and income. As a result you can move to somewhere incredibly cheap to live since there's no need to be in an in demand market in order to have a nice job. Housing is really quite cheap in the US. With Real Estate you pay for the location not the actual land or building. Of course people won't necessarily want to move away from their "hip" city, but UBI is "basic" and if you want to stay in a high demand area you will have to supplement UBI with work. As for basic consumables, demand is unlikely to go up for these fundamental goods because people are _already_ consuming them at their basic required levels under the current system (toilet paper, eggs, milk, bread, chicken, beans, rice, birth control, etc).
• dsp1234 9y ago
  Just a bit of quick math[0]: ~323,000,000 total US population 77.2% over the age of 18 ~250,000,000 total over the age of 18 $12,000 per year per adult = $3,000,000,000,000 per year [0] - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216
  • grecy 9y ago
    How much did that recent war cost?
    • kolbe 9y ago
      About $500b a year.
  • deegles 9y ago
    Not bad, especially since most of it would go straight back into the economy. People who need the money tend to spend it immediately. I feel it would drive a great de-urbanization, as people try to move places where they could get the most for their UBI.
  • guaka 9y ago
    Trillions. That's what's currently going around in quantitative easing. That's why many are calling for QE for the people. Instead of giving money to financial institutions, give it directly to the people. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing
    • chris_va 9y ago
      There is a big difference between loaning $1T once, and getting paid back, versus giving it away every year.
      • zanny 9y ago
        You loan 1T to the poor one year and get paid back 1T from the rich the next from all those poor spending money on goods the rich sell. UBI isn't like defense spending. It isn't a black hole you put tax dollars down and get nothing out. It means tremendous goods demand for the necessities of life that is extremely stable and reliable for businesses to profit off.
• roceasta 9y ago
  I like the idea of basic income but I confess that my ideal of a basic income recipient is someone akin to the 19th-century amateur scientist subsisting on a private income whilst making original contributions to human knowledge, and, as a side effect, to society. Whereas the reality of people receiving free money might be somewhat different. There's the drip, drip welfare payments of just enough money to survive without being motivated to find a job. Then there's the fallout, family break-up and chaos that occur in the wake of a lottery win. Both morally questionable. Or perhaps there might be a settling down period of people acting irresponsibly followed by a recognition that engagement with the problems of civilisation and survival doesn't end because one has food, shelter and internet. There are novels to write, structures to design, problems to solve and of course there's science to be done. Work is more fun than 'fun'. Pick something worthy of your talents or start the slide into mental disorder and addiction. Whatever the truth it almost goes without saying that a study alone cannot sort these issues out. Perhaps it can help. But in science experiment is insufficient there has to be theory to go with. (This is a major reason why so few studies in medicine and psychology are reproducible. I assume in sociology too.) What makes it more difficult in this case is there are moral components which can't be assessed empirically, only by conjecture and criticism.
  • anovikov 9y ago
    It means putting 99% of recipients, or more, into illustion which will result in nothing but a severe depression in a few years. Suddenly being able to contribute to the world in a 'larger' way, they will quickly realize that they can't - just as many startup founders. Maybe, need to meet the bills by mind-numbing work is really a blessing for most people - i had stable income almost without work for years and i got very, very depressed.
    • wavefunction 9y ago
      That sounds like Anecdata. Especially the 99% claim.
    • hduwvzvshsuz 9y ago
      I disagree that everyone would be depressed. Cityfolk probably but they deserve it because they will be the ones voting in ubi. They will also be the ones starving when us country people start only making enough food for ourselves and spend our days at the river drinking beers and fishing or hunting
• kolbe 9y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't UBI operate on the premise that it's replacing many of the existing social programs? For example, unconditional money rather than food/housing assistance. If the participants of the study also get access to these things, doesn't that severely limit the usefulness of this study? Also, $1k/mo is pretty small. Are you just hoping to observe some behavioral changes at the margin with which to extrapolate?
  • ja30278 9y ago
    There seems to be a common bait-and-switch tactic performed by proponents of UBI, in which they mention UBI as a replacement for social programs when talking about affordability, but back away from that assertion when questioned about how to handle (for example) recipients that spend all of their UBI on drugs instead of food.
    • deegles 9y ago
      I see that as a societal symptom instead of a personal failure. I would rather a person spend their time playing videogames* instead of being stuck working dead-end jobs until the day they die. *Drugs are a different issue, that should be treated as a health problem and dealt with accordingly.
    • Guvante 9y ago
      Isn't better psychological assistance the better solution to that problem? Unless you are serving food directly you cannot prevent turning assistance into drugs because you can always just sell whatever you are given.
    • jpindar 9y ago
      We handle them exactly as we do now... by doing nothing. Today's social programs don't give people more money just because they spent all that they were given yesterday. It's universal INCOME, not universal "take care of all your problems for you".
  • mfoy_ 9y ago
    That's the end game, certainly, but having guaranteed income and additional programs doesn't hurt the experiment. The idea is you can help pay for UBI by cutting the then-superfluous programs. But the benefit for people is in having the unconditional safety net, not in having access to only one program.
• Jedi72 9y ago
  Basic Income is often proposed in conjunction with cutting basic social services & welfare payments, thus achieving a net gain for the government. This seems to make it attractive to both the neoliberals and the neosocialismés, but I believe this is a terrible mistake that will have the exact opposite effect to what its supporters intend - there will be more poverty and debt slavery, not less. (Methodology debates aside, I generally think both sides want people to propser & be happy). My proof is by example through thought experiment: I'm a grad student who has a bicycle accident. Without free gov healthcare I now must go into debt to either the hospital or a lender (medical purchases are just one example of an essentially non-negotiable expense). Perhaps I already had other debts, but somehow now my interest payment + living expenses payments are more than my basic income, otherwise known as the normal life of a grad student in todays society anyway - in my case BI didn't work. This is just one example of how easy it is to slide back into poverty with such a system, it could occur slower and over a few generations but sooner or later poverty is back. We just pushed the goal posts back a little bit. Instead I believe we should leave our dealings with money to the marketplace, but should definitely act as a society to provide a good life for all citizens by seeing that their basic needs are met. Make free public housing that all citizens have a right to ask for. Provide basic but nutritious food to the populace, for free. Encourage free markets and capitalism, but see that the basic needs of every citizen are met - and perhaps a little power in the marketplace i.e. money is also a basic need, but its still only one of many. "If they didn't already exist, people would think public libraries were the most radically extreme socialism". For these reasons, the growing popularity of BI is worrysome to me. It's just neoliberalism made pallitable by a once-in-every-few-generations wealth transfer.
  • Guvante 9y ago
    > Make free public housing that all citizens have a right to ask for. Median rent in the US is $934 thus this one benefit costs the US goverment as much as this proposed BI would. Unless we are talking about housing where people aren't which is likely a non-starter for a slue of reasons.
    • Jedi72 9y ago
      To me that only highlights how prohibatively expensive it would be to give BI to people in any amount that would really move the needle
• legohead 9y ago
  5 years is an eternity in today's age, progression-wise. Hopefully results will be published as the trial progresses.
• benstrumental 9y ago
  99pi recently released a podcast on the basic income research being done by the Finnish government & YCombinator: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-finnish-experiment/ http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-finnish-experiment...
• neilwilson 9y ago
  The design is flawed from the start. If you have any sort of income guarantee in a system where (i) there are others in the same currency area who don't receive the income (ii) the amount is insufficient to live on (iii) there are insufficient jobs overall in the economy for all that want them (iv) it isn't permanent then all you actually have is a tax credit system with a different withdrawal mechanism. https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-basically-finnished-babadac2d29b https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-basi... The pathologies of income schemes that cause all of them to be degraded and cancelled build up over time as people adjust to the new scheme and work out who is failing to reciprocate. Overall basic income is theft from workers and will be seen as such by those workers. https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-basically-theft-a95eeedb5aad https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-basi... They then agitate to have the income removed from those seen as cheating the system. What we need are guaranteed jobs at a guaranteed living wage, paid for by the state working for the public good. Then private businesses finally have to compete for labour and that maintains the wage share. People need something to do where they can be of service to others. Not paying off and left to rot.
  • eganist 9y ago
    Given that the discussion is a research proposal to test basic income as a concept, rather than focus your comment on dismissing the concept of basic income (which it's worth noting is totally fine to do but isn't relevant to the thread), why not propose changes to refine the study so that it may more effectively assess whether basic income is viable?
    • IanDrake 9y ago
      You would need a small nation state to run the experiment with its own currency and limited natural resources (as in, it can't just sell oil and distribute profits like Alaska). It would also have to be very librial about borders and illegal immigrants to simulate the US. I would suggest the minimum size of this nation should be around 15+ million people.
  • rory096 9y ago
• jgalt212 9y ago
  It blows my mind that the allegedly smart SV elite think Guaranteed Basic Income will solve more problems than it creates. But maybe there much smarter than I, and they secretly want to create these problems so they can capitalize on them. Or maybe, they want to sap the proletariat of their drive so that the elite can remain the elite forever.
  • gist 9y ago
    What is it? It's a bit of guilt, a bit of idealism and a bit of intellectual masturbation (for lack of a better way to put it). The fact is only someone who has their own needs taken care of at least monetarily (yc and/or the researchers on this project with secure jobs) can have the type of personality that will want to entertain themselves with this type of a project. Meanwhile, as they used to say back in my day growing up, 'children are starving in Africa so eat your food'. That was a reference to the fact that there were real problems in the world that needed to be solved today. Or in our own country right now. In other words they are spending time and money or something hypothetical (no jobs) instead of doing something today to help people that need help right now. Today. Not in 10 or 70 years. That's because they can't deal hypothetically and have success with today (or actually don't want to get their hands dirty) so they need to pick something in the future to occupy their available time and spend some of their money and get rid of guilt. In the end the 'guilt' refers to making then feel better about themselves for their extreme luck.
  • x2f10 9y ago
    I wonder the same. My tin-foil theory: The poor are no longer able to purchase consumer goods as their entire income goes to their basic needs. With the middle class being pushed to the poor class, this will have devastating consequences for our consumerist-based economy. Thus, BI is nothing more than recession prevention. Of course, that's probably not the case.
  • rconti 9y ago
    Or maybe they want to do a study to figure out how it all pans out, rather than making wild claims with nothing to back them up.
• canjobear 9y ago
  A huge part of what makes basic income appealing is that it is unconditional and guaranteed. Otherwise it seems like it would create unsafe levels of government control. For many people, BI would end up being a large portion of their income, such that losing it would be catastrophic. Now those people would become beholden to any government demand made on penalty of revoking BI. If a government enacts unconditional BI in the year 2020, who's to say they won't change their minds in 2028 and make it conditional on good behavior? Are there any mechanisms that could make basic income a true unconditional guarantee?
  • eduren 9y ago
    Definitely a big concern. >Are there any mechanisms that could make basic income a true unconditional guarantee? Maybe a government backed cryptocurrency? One that distributes the BI through some sort of immutable smart contract? Lots of problems with the approach, but maybe we can solve enough of them. Now, whether our current governmental or political realities would ever give up control in that manner is another story :(
    • shpongled 9y ago
      Nothing under control of a government is immutable. This is because governments have a power withheld from civilians: that of legal lethal force.
  • creaghpatr 9y ago
    This is already an issue with Medicaid. 65 million people depend on the government for free healthcare and cannot afford to lose it.
    • trgn 9y ago
      Agree, but no need to only point down. Social security income is indispensable for the majority of pensioners now. It used to be only for day laborers who it was understood never had an opportunity to save. Things have changed for sure. Similarly, most old people wouldn't be able to afford their healthcare if it wasn't for Medicare, even it they never even filled out a Medicaid application.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• sharemywin 9y ago
  My guess on how it will turn out: 1. People given Basic income and minimal addictions will fair best 2. People without basic income and minimal addictions will fair second best 2. People without basic income and addictions will fair third best(drugs, major alcohol, internet/game) 4. People given basic income and addictions will fair worst(drugs, major alcohol, internet/game) I'm probably completely wrong. 3 and 4 could be switched in which case Basic income would be always better. My general premise is giving people with a strong addiction money without some kind of life structure is a bad idea. Please don't down vote me if you disagree. Please just comment on how you disagree.
  • kolbe 9y ago
    Agreement/disagreement are not the only reasons for the voting system. Relevance is important, too.
    • sharemywin 9y ago
      I agree that my opinion/guesses are irrelevant. But, it started a conversation that could become relevant. - or devolve into BS you never know.
  • billmalarky 9y ago
    Makes sense but I still imagine addicts with UBI will fair better than people with addictions under the current system. It's _way_ easier to be a functional addict if you have financial stability. The real problems with addiction (crime, disease, etc) start to compound when you can't afford the habit. I do see a lot of existential crises occurring in people born under the current system who transition to a UBI lifestyle. Probably less so for those born into UBI.
  • xrange 9y ago
    That sounds awfully static. The interesting thing will be to see if people with unconditional money end up becoming addicts at higher rates. Are the study researchers planning on making the data openly available? Is it going to be cash payments, or will it be some sort of debit card where the researchers can track whether people are spending money at grocery stores, or at casinos?
• indescions_2017 9y ago
  My bias is that inherited wealth passed down down through the traditional family structure remains the greatest guarantor of multi-generational financial prosperity and stability. Even a single member of your immediate extended family attaining professional status as Doctor or Lawyer results in a higher probability of entry to the middle class for the entire family than any other indicator. The big question proponents of Universal Basic Income must answer is: does direct stimulus of aggregate demand result in real growth? Is risk de-incentivized when a labor market participant is not required to work for marginal increases in "happiness"? Taking our current central bankers experiments with quantitative easing (and now, perhaps, quantitative tightening) as a proxy for injecting liquidity into the system I think there is at least one evident result: bubbles forming in even the unlikeliest of places. In any case, full support for YC's experiment and can't wait to see the data and results. Best of Luck and thanks for your vision and efforts!
• Keyframe 9y ago
  One interesting thought, maybe, would be, as robotics/automation takes over and grows, is to introduce special automation tax from which BI could be partially (or fully?) funded? Maybe ti could alleviate some of the inflation concerns.
• Wildgoose 9y ago
  Start small. Give very adult citizen the same fixed amount. Deduct that amount from existing welfare payments. We now have a guaranteed universal Citizens's "Basic" Income, albeit at a very low level, paid for by taxpayers via the normal progressive tax system and which primarily helps the working poor. Iron out all the inevitable implementation problems. Then raise the level to the minimum level for welfare payments and remove a swathe of bureaucracy. Observe the results while gaining a sensible Welfare System based upon "From each according to their ability, To each equally, with neither favour nor discrimination". Adjust as necessary.
• nimos 9y ago
  I think peoples choices in a situation like this will be wildly different than if there was a government provided basic income that was available forever, or at least had the appearance of being available forever. Having extra money for a couple years doesn't let you permanently exit the workforce in the same way a permanent basic income would. As well I think for established people with kids and other commitments 1000 isn't nearly enough to get by but there is a real danger that for young adults you give them this option of completely checking out of society if it's available forever. Rent a cheap house with friends, smoke weed, and play videogames sounds like a pretty decent option to a lot of 18 year olds. Or even younger maybe? When can kids legally drop out of high school? I really think basic income is a bad idea. I don't think we are anywhere near the point of mass replacement of the entire workforce with robots/ai even in the developed world. Forcing people who are working to pay into a system that lets people contribute 0 to society while enjoying a decent life(24k for a couple/roomates is completely livable in many parts of US especially without a car) is both unfair and likely to cause significant social strife between workers/non-workers. I really think a basic livable wage with the removal of the minimum wage is a far better solution. Set some minimum livable wage based on 40 hour work week and have the government top up wages rather than incomes. Obviously there would have to be some sort of progressive claw back system to encourage people to find better paying jobs and not just go with the easiest thing available. Maybe have the government act as an employer of last resort creating some busy work cleaning streets or repairing roads. I really think it's important for people to have something to do when they wake up in the morning and to be contributing members of society. Not only out of a sense of fairness for the people that are working but I think it is incredibly unhealthy to not have any responsibilities in life.
  • ghaff 9y ago
    >Rent a cheap house with friends, smoke weed, and play videogames sounds like a pretty decent option to a lot of 18 year olds. Or even younger maybe? I suspect a lot of people here don't appreciate this because they (and many of their friends) have a much different mindset. But I can easily see a lot of that sort of behavior and then, ten or fifteen years in, they decide they want something more out of life, start a family, whatever. But now they're 30 years-old with no skills, never having worked a real job, minimal education, etc. Pretty hard to do a reboot at that point.
• chris_va 9y ago
  Commenting on the research design. This research, to me, seems to be ignoring the biggest open question of UBI. All tests to date have looked pretty good, but have only been done on a micro level. The fundamental issue one really needs to answer for UBI is the macro scale effects. As a society, if we were to redistribute trillions of dollars without commensurate economic value being directly created, we'd expect to see large scale inflation. Money is a complicated subject, but essentially it represents a transfer of a future scarce resource. For commodities, the cost is essentially the sum of labor to generate it (either to mine the raw resources, build the factory, discover the technology, etc). If no economic resource is being added to the economy, then you are just devaluing money. That is usually very regressive, and in this case could be made worse by people slightly reducing their economic labor because of the extra income stream. I could see this leading to a bad cycle, where any economic gains due to increasing UBI are later undermined. Anyway, it would be nice if UBI worked, but I've seen no evidence that it will in a large system. It would be nice to get confirmation of previous UBI studies, but this research proposal is likely to just generate the same data, without addressing any of the open fundamental issues.
• manav 9y ago
  Where are the results of the feasibility study in Oakland?
• olleromam91 9y ago
  I like to do this though experiment sometimes. Let's assume some sort of Basic Income is enacted. A standard livable amount for all adults, that will scale with inflation, and even with number of dependents. Some people will still work. Will still pursue hard working jobs that contribute to society, that push our capabilities as a species forward, and add value (important). But think about most of the world and people that you know...I'd imagine that on average, people would elect to not choose to - for lack of a better term - "work hard" to boost their income if their basic needs are covered. Some folks would just love to let others take the wheel, and enjoy their netflix and soylent in peace. This needs proof of course, but I believe that's an assumption we can make for sake of discussion. Now...we all know that automation is coming. Already we see many of the tasks that humans depend on for survival and prosperity being done faster and more efficiently with artificial intelligence and robotics. Things like harvesting natural resources, agriculture, production of goods, and even building infrastructures. The responsibility of these tasks is shifting away from the people, and into the hands (clamps?) of specialized machines. So, assuming 1) we have individuals who are having their needs provided for, but not making a measurable contribution to the survival of the species/system and 2) we are trending toward automation and hyper optimization for all the processes that we depend on for survival...when do AI and/or algorithms start to find that certain people are not worth being provided for? Who manages these systems? Someone that we elect? An artificial entity? I'd honestly love to hear others thoughts on this. I know I would rather fight and claw for survival than pray to someone that they don't choose me to shoot off into space.
  • zanny 9y ago
    It happens a lot where people make this jump from autonomous machines to sentient machines. It isn't a small gap. Going from domain learning and genetic algorithms to develop solutions for a hardcoded task to sapience is a huge leap. It won't be accidental, or at least come out of nowhere. We should be able to see it coming even if it will come out of evolving algorithms. There will absolutely be intent in constructing intelligent artificial life.
• cpacia 9y ago
  I'm curious why another study is needed. Is it because the results of past studies didn't make a strong case for the UBI?
• awjr 9y ago
  Many countries already have a form of age restricted UBI. The state pension. I know many pensioners in the UK that work as the state pension does not provide 'enough'.
  • hycaria 9y ago
    Enough for what ? Eating ? Maintaining a family house that is not residence of your children anymore ? Having a car ? Covering additional health expenses ?
• jumpkickhit 9y ago
  Really like the idea of basic income. However, after living in the real world as long as I have, I know all it would do is raise rent by exactly that amount, everywhere.
• padobson 9y ago
  Will this research enable conclusions about the macroeconomic effects of UBI? It seems like it'd be difficult to predict how national and international markets will react to an entire country suddenly receiving a UBI based on a study of only a few thousand people.
• jpao79 9y ago
  I think a better direction would be if YC Research could figure out a process to growth hack a new high density city from scratch instead of everyone crowding into physically constrained existing city. Make YC entry conditional on relocating to somewhere besides Silicon Valley/San Francisco. Maybe somewhere in California (Redding, Modesto) so you have the same rules/regulation as in California but with minimal earthquake risk, plenty of land and existing water resource Maybe even do something like the Amazon second headquarters RFP. Sort of like what PG describes here: http://www.paulgraham.com/pgh.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pgh.html
• nnfy 9y ago
  The idea that UBI will wipe away the ignorance and cultural dogma that keeps poor people poor is absurd. How many lottery winners hold on to their winnings? Let's be realistic. If you give the uneducated poor free money, the only thing that will change is how much money they have to spend on junk food and dated electriconics. UBI as a policy in a place like the U.S. is hopelessly niave. Our culture of poverty if the typical culture of ignorant poverty. I speak as someone who lived among the poor-hell, in high school I dated two women from the same trailer park, poverty in the U.S. is about getting mine, and often times about getting one over the man. These aren't temporarily downtrodden future intellectuals. These are people who haven't understood education or work for generations. But, on the other hand, who are we to claim our culture is superior?
  • gnaritas 9y ago
    > The idea that UBI will wipe away the ignorance and cultural dogma that keeps poor people poor is absurd. No one is saying that. > How many lottery winners hold on to their winnings? Not relevant. > Let's be realistic. If you give the uneducated poor free money, the only thing that will change is how much money they have to spend on junk food and dated electriconics. That's the point. UBI isn't welfare, it's not meant to rehabilitate people and make them into workers. If most people who get UBI choose to live off it and not work, and remain poor, fucking great, that's the whole point of the program, to reduce the working population down to those who actually want to work as there aren't going to be enough jobs for everyone and many people would choose not to work if they could. You just really do not understand what UBI is about, not at all.
• tmpdude01 9y ago
  I suspect that a lot of people in favor of this idea have not actually had much contact with the poor or working class, and have not spent much time thinking about the distortions UBI would create in the economy. People in the tech industry seem to view this idea through their own prism. A guaranteed income for the entire population would result in inflation of basic goods and services, as well as rental housing. Given a truly universal income, there would be nothing stopping people from borrowing as much as they can against this guaranteed income and spending it on a new car, or new furniture, or drugs, or going to a loan shark for any other reason. The government would have to place restrictions on what UBI could be spent on, and limits would have to be placed on increases in rents. In effect, UBI would be a backdoor for much more government regulation. If society wants to provide for the basic needs of people, they can always build government housing, and give people food vouchers. The US economy is not productive enough to meet all the needs of everyone, without having to work for it. US tax revenue for 2016 was only $3.2 trillion.
• grondilu 9y ago
  > We tentatively plan to randomly select 3,000 individuals across two US states to participate in the study: 1,000 will receive $1,000 per month for up to 5 years, and 2,000 will receive $50 per month and serve as a control group for comparison. That's 66 million dollars, if you're wondering.
• grondilu 9y ago
  Couldn't they research and study people who already don't work for a living? I mean those who already own capital and don't expect the government to steal some for them? That would sure be cheaper.
• watertom 9y ago
  UBI is great, now everyone will be able to pay for healthcare!
• ctdonath 9y ago
  This is a test of charity, not UBI. 1. The money involved is voluntarily donated, not confiscated from taxpayers - an essential difference between tax-funded vs charity. 2. 3000 recipients is vanishingly small on a state or federal level. When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say, basic rent rising to $1000/mo). 3. Many who currently produce wealth to make ends meet - paying income-scaled taxes included - may very well be enticed to "go Galt" by seeking a self-sufficient lifestyle where $UBI/mo covers all cash needs without one having to get a job per se. (I find this option quite attractive.) 4. Old aphorism: "tax what you want less of, subsidize what you want more of." UBI implements/enforces this by punishing the productive and rewarding the idle. Yes, some people will use the opportunity to do laudable activities - which won't necessarily contribute to the economy. Yes, some people will use this to bridge current welfare-to-work transition issues - which are better handled by narrowly fixing that bridging problem without having to involve the entire population. Yes, more people will wonder why they're pulling other people's economic weight, and consider the merits of humble low-income living. 5. I realize Y Combinator is in the business of giving money to people to encourage productivity. Methinks they're too used to working with the rare hyper-productive, and don't grok how many people are quite content with low-cost no-effort zero-productivity living.
  • billmalarky 9y ago
    >When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say, basic rent rising to $1000/mo). At first glance this seems intuitively correct, but I'd encourage anyone reading this to control+f my username in this thread for arguments showing otherwise.
    • ctdonath 9y ago
      I did, and found your arguments wanting. You're conflating local with national behaviors, and conflating high-value goods/services with low. Take a low-income area and give everyone $1000/mo for no reason (they're not trading any local productivity for it), and rent & other basic costs will immediately rise accordingly. "Move!" you (and I) say - and the limited supply of inexpensive rural housing (matching UBIers' lack of need for jobs) will likewise rise accordingly, as the market of renters just vastly increased. Over time, low-end housing supply may increase, but now you've a market of homes which rather pointedly do not have jobs nearby - you've just created communities of people absolutely dependent on UBI.
• jaredchung 9y ago
  The Basic Income research project in Finland is certainly relevant here. A podcast episode: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-finnish-experiment/ http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-finnish-experiment... A recent article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/opinion/finland-universal-basic-income.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/opinion/finland-universal...
• ctdonath 9y ago
  In real UBI implementation, is it considered taxable income? Core to UBI is that since everyone gets UBI, and since I pay substantial taxes, I'd pay a minimum of $UBI in taxes and simply get it back as a UBI check for a net total of $0. BUT... If that's taxable income, I have to pay (say) a cumulative 33% on that additional "income". Instead of a net $0, I have to pay something like $4000 in additional taxes. WTF?
• throwaway0255 9y ago
  Research like this is dangerous. > We tentatively plan to randomly select 3,000 individuals across two US states to participate in the study: 1,000 will receive $1,000 per month for up to 5 years, and 2,000 will receive $50 per month and serve as a control group for comparison. Is this a joke? This may as well read: "We'd like to research the effects of Universal Basic Income. We tentatively plan to select 300 individuals from opposite sides of a freeway: 100 will receive a free roast beef sandwich, and 200 will receive a pack of airline peanuts and serve as a control group for comparison." UBI costs 1- to 2-million dollars PER HEAD to simulate. You can't cut corners on this and still expect to get relevant data. Not only are you not getting the data you want on how UBI would affect human behavior on the scale of a lifetime, you're also totally ignoring the greater sociological impact and resulting economic impact. The 5-year span is too short to impact human behavior, the 1000-person headcount is too small to observe any greater sociological or economic impact, and the source of the funding (willing voluntary participants interested in UBI) means we're getting zero data on how the public would feel about being forced to fund this. This research addresses literally none of the strongest arguments against UBI. Maybe this is cynical, but I think they might already know all of this. They're just doing it anyway because they know a horn offering 5 years of free money will get their blog a lot of attention, and they know the results of this "research" will be biased toward the pro-UBI result they already want. I guess we can all look forward to decades of liberal arts majors citing the outcome of this research as if it means anything. It's really unfortunate too, because these are the issues that really matter. People spend all their energy arguing about race and sex and abortion and gay marriage and cops and who gets to use which bathroom, but nothing impacts human prosperity (and suffering and death and peace and war) the way macroeconomics can. That's when policy gets real and impacts people on a scale with a lot of zeroes on the end, and when enough people are misinformed about something like this, it has the potential to take humanity down a very dark path.
• hxta98596 9y ago
  Congrats to the ycr team on the progress and accomplishments to date. I must say after reading through to the full proposal, I was a little disappointed it doesn't include much that stood out as different or "disruptive" or "new" as I would have hoped given that it has grown out of YC. YCR has definitely done some cool things and is moving very quickly and again congrats on the successes so far. Maybe other things are going on behind the scenes that were not included in the proposal and are not on the website? I couldn't help but get the impression while reading the proposal that this sounds like a proposal that any ol' well-funded private foundation could have come up with, and unfortunately I fear the study will run into the same problems those other private foundation type studies run into while in progress and once completed. What a waste and shame if that happens. I fully understand there are limitations to these studies, and rules to play by, and there are many working components as these studies grow bigger in scale and touch more people and must interact more with the government and press then research teams kind of need to become more risk averse and CYA a lot more. But couldn't there be a secondary smaller research studies going that actually try new and interesting UBI research and try to answer some of the harder questions UBI faces as well as look harder at some of the multi-sigma rare events (pros and cons) of UBI that could happen. Also I want to commend YCR for what looks to be a legit "people first" research approach. I wish more policy type researchers follow your lead and think about how people might be affected or not affected as a result of policy instead of just making assumptions based on big macro numbers changing and then trying to change those numbers. Again no offense, but this study feels like similar studies: Get some smart brand name Phd's, spend a lot of money and spend a lot of time to get data needed to calculate some "results" numbers to support a policy idea or two. Great, these "results" will end up in some random think tank type policy articles and papers that government representatives have thrown their way every day by various lobbying and advocacy groups. These results will probably make a few good buzzworthy headlines on various news and "pseudo" news sites from NYtimes down to buzzfeed. Great. Headline: "A new large UBI study just showed xyz positives happen under UBI but there's a couple exceptions...". This is a lot of money and time to run a study you know no matter how successful it is what UBI naysayers will still have tons of ammunition to complain why policy shouldn't be changed yet or at least not dramatically. What then? Another 5 year study? Cool story bro. Good studies that lead to good policies do 2 things: 1. They show evidence of doing the good thing they are suppose to do. 2. They shutdown most or all of the things the other side is using to prevent the policy from passing. This study is not doing enough of either, especially #2. Are you guys studying things like: The psychology of people once UBI is more common and less stigmatized not just the psychology of getting unconditional money? How to pay for it? Seriously here. What will the uptake rate be? Will the first years pull down tax payers into UBI before re-adjusting and they return to work. What are you really shooting for here? 20% 33% 50% feeding back into the payer loop? What tactics might groups or business use to reverse or combat the psychology on UBI, what will be used to take advantage of people who suddenly have money and no restrictions on it? Hello more MLM schemes? Look at Norway news this week and their SWF, don't make that mistake. I realize you have aggregation problems and methodological individualism stuff and what not. But start a moonshots division in YCR please. Good luck.
• peterburkimsher 9y ago
  A few questions: Will there be travel restrictions? (if someone is receiving this money, do they have to stay in the same city/country, or can they move?) What age ranges will be included in the study? [I found the answer in the report: it's 21 to 40] Is there a control group that won't be interviewed regularly? I'm more motivated when my boss talks to me. Requiring people to meticulously manage their time will already bring a productivity boost. What about controlling for the end date? My contracts last for 1 year at a time. If I suddenly knew I'd have a steady income for 5 years, that would be a huge relief, and I'd change my lifestyle accordingly and settle down (e.g. be able to plan to start a family). That feeling is independent of the amount of money, it's just the stability. My first feeling is that living with basic income will be similar to retirement. (and there's a lot more data about what retired people spend their time doing).
• jasonjei 9y ago
  Robot tax. Fund basic income on the basis whereby every job that is replaced by automation, a tax must be paid by a company with more than 1000 employees.
• lancewiggs 9y ago
  Given the skew of poverty in the USA to black and latin populations you might want to consider hiring several full time people on to the team and leadership who can bring the understanding that can only come from being part of those communities. Otherwise this can be attacked as being dominated by rich white people. While the intent is clear the execution needs to match the targeted end users. You may also want to consider the efffect of health care. In other UBI environments free healthcare is a given. In this experiment healthcare costs can easily cripple the impact of the regular income. Control for that by providing health care insurance, or make it two experiments by doing some with and some without. If that doesn’t work maybe consider doing this experiment in another country.
• cshenton 9y ago
  I'm somewhat doubtful of the design as it's explained in this blogpost, seems like there will be lots of treatment externalities. I'd really recommend anyone who's interested read http://cega.berkeley.edu/assets/cega_research_projects/1/Identifying-Impacts-on-Education-and-Health-in-the-Presence-of-Treatment-Externalities.pdf http://cega.berkeley.edu/assets/cega_research_projects/1/Ide... for an explanation of why a totally randomised control trial is the wrong choice for things like this.