30 ms·

Absolutely, and this is also the problem with every* other basic income study that's been conducted over the past few decades. If you promise basic income for

Absolutely, and this is also the problem with every* other basic income study that's been conducted over the past few decades. If you promise basic income for only 5 years, then I'm probably not going to quit my job and become an artist because I can't be unemployed for 5 years and expect to waltz back into a job. If you promise basic income "forever", then I'm far more likely to retire at 30 and plan to never work again. * I believe this is the case, correct me if there are any I missed

Hydraulix989 9y ago
This is why Patreon still makes a lot more sense for artists.
wavefunction 9y ago
Or you've got five years to work a reduced schedule and see if you can "make it" as an artist. Seems great, as opposed to just trying to make it while working full time.
LoSboccacc 9y ago
Would you not work? Basic income is nearly not enough to access luxuries. Sure you should be able to live off it, but I think most people would likely want more, the difference from forced equality being that you can still work and keep that as luxury money.
- FreakyT 9y ago
  > I think most people would likely want more Would they, though? That's the key question that I believe this study (and others like it) fail to address. Depending on the basic income amount, I believe it would be possible to live a fulfilling (if somewhat minimalist) life without needing to supplement that income.
  - kowdermeister 9y ago
    I would want more. Currently I don't really care what I buy at supermarkets, I can go on 2 week holidays and potentially buy gadgets I like. However I can't really afford a car or buy a home or fancy synthesizers. With BI I could spend more, but I would still keep on working towards a relaxing financial freedom where money is not a problem at all.
  - godelski 9y ago
    Besides a few monks, everyone I've met that makes under $20k/yr wants more. I've never seen a real area where people are comfortable until the $40k/yr mark. Yeah, I know there are exceptions (there's always outliers in data, but you can still find means and trends). So I am confident you wouldn't see a significant difference in number of workers unless you brought that UBI level up by several times the proposed $1k/mo.
  - badestrand 9y ago
    I never understood that point. Almost everyone I know works fulltime although they could live a "fulfilling (if somewhat minimalist) life" on maybe 15h/week of work. If minimizing work would be a goal, most people would be able to do it right now. Yes, this requires employer flexibility and the move from 40h->15h per week grants much less freedom than stopping work entirely but masses of people suddenly being content with a minimum amount of money does not sound convincing to me at all.
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    Haven't most studies around UBI shown that the only people that usually don't work when given a UBI are students and mothers (so they can focus on school and their children, respectively)? Living off the basics is pretty dull. Most people who live ascetic lifestyles by choice usually come from a position of relative wealth and choose it more as an aesthetic or affectation than anything.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    I think there are plenty of people who would be happy having a minimalist life, and there are those who would choose to see the world. And I believe that there are those who are drawn to doing things; working on stuff that they're interested in. And there are those who do want more stuff, and so will work. All in all, I think there are enough people that things would be fine.
  - exclusiv 9y ago
    I agree. I think a lot would move to affordable places where that guaranteed income goes a lot further. If that's true then we aren't going to be as competitive on a global scale. Maybe that's not a big deal, maybe it's a huge deal; I don't know. Anecdotally my friend is part Native-American and gets 4k/mo from the tribe's casino money and they're bumping it up more soon. She's chosen to be a stay at home mom.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  The question really isn't whether someone person on Hacker News would want to work. A better question would be, "how many would report their work out of an entire country was offered a basic income?" There are already data points for comparison, when that question is asked.
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    Most people on Hacker News are really not any different from anyone else in their country - they're just in a different line of work. The idea that you're a better/more moral person if you get paid more is a fallacy. An interesting question is "can we reasonably automate things that people currently get paid less for than a basic income would be, or will we have to pay them more, and if we have to pay them more, what will be the economic effect of that?"
    - LoSboccacc 9y ago
      It may also work by making basic income really basic, so there’s an incentive to still go out there and specialize.
    - icelancer 9y ago
      >>Most people on Hacker News are really not any different from anyone else in their country - they're just in a different line of work. The idea that you're a better/more moral person if you get paid more is a fallacy. People on HN are significantly different and not even close to a representative sample. No one at any point is saying that HN readers are better or more moral, but there are huge, huge differences in technical skill, intelligence, knowledge, college attendance rates, social skills, empathy, and so forth compared to an average sampling of the population of the United States. I'll leave it up to everyone to decide which direction the arrow points in the above fields.
    - IncRnd 9y ago
      "The idea that you're a better/more moral person if you get paid more is a fallacy." You are making arguments against things I never wrote, which is a strawman fallacy.
_jal 9y ago
This is the problem with a lot of economic reasoning. The 'rational actor' construct works in toy models, but is much less useful in reality. I took a couple years off a long time ago. I didn't stop working on stuff. Really, if you pay me, all that means is that I work on what you want me to work on, and maybe show up at particular times. It doesn't motivate me to work, it just motivates me to change topics. I absolutely know people who would never work again. I know other people like me, who do it because they enjoy it. And details matter a lot, and tend to be ignored[1] by simplistic first-principle reasoning. A big part of this is the ratio of those, and how quickly the number of jobs drop. I would fully expect this sort of thing to need tuning as it goes - I personally see the biggest change being a sudden explosion of people with lots of free time. Just as a tiny example, what does this do to the video game market? What about dry cleaners when fewer people wear business-drag? Anyone who makes confident predictions based on econ101-style reasoning is simply dressing their politics up in an argument from authority. [1] What does assortive mating look like under such a scheme - how much status will holding a job gain? Is the income set at an "uncomfortable" level, how will that change over time, what sort of barriers (class, academic, opportunities, etc.) will grow up around it? Are there any incentives to do something useful, even if it isn't what we think of as a 'job'? Details really matter.

Hydraulix989 9y ago

This is why Patreon still makes a lot more sense for artists.

wavefunction 9y ago

Or you've got five years to work a reduced schedule and see if you can "make it" as an artist. Seems great, as opposed to just trying to make it while working full time.

LoSboccacc 9y ago

Would you not work? Basic income is nearly not enough to access luxuries. Sure you should be able to live off it, but I think most people would likely want more, the difference from forced equality being that you can still work and keep that as luxury money.

FreakyT 9y ago
> I think most people would likely want more Would they, though? That's the key question that I believe this study (and others like it) fail to address. Depending on the basic income amount, I believe it would be possible to live a fulfilling (if somewhat minimalist) life without needing to supplement that income.
- kowdermeister 9y ago
  I would want more. Currently I don't really care what I buy at supermarkets, I can go on 2 week holidays and potentially buy gadgets I like. However I can't really afford a car or buy a home or fancy synthesizers. With BI I could spend more, but I would still keep on working towards a relaxing financial freedom where money is not a problem at all.
- godelski 9y ago
  Besides a few monks, everyone I've met that makes under $20k/yr wants more. I've never seen a real area where people are comfortable until the $40k/yr mark. Yeah, I know there are exceptions (there's always outliers in data, but you can still find means and trends). So I am confident you wouldn't see a significant difference in number of workers unless you brought that UBI level up by several times the proposed $1k/mo.
- badestrand 9y ago
  I never understood that point. Almost everyone I know works fulltime although they could live a "fulfilling (if somewhat minimalist) life" on maybe 15h/week of work. If minimizing work would be a goal, most people would be able to do it right now. Yes, this requires employer flexibility and the move from 40h->15h per week grants much less freedom than stopping work entirely but masses of people suddenly being content with a minimum amount of money does not sound convincing to me at all.
- michaelchisari 9y ago
  Haven't most studies around UBI shown that the only people that usually don't work when given a UBI are students and mothers (so they can focus on school and their children, respectively)? Living off the basics is pretty dull. Most people who live ascetic lifestyles by choice usually come from a position of relative wealth and choose it more as an aesthetic or affectation than anything.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  I think there are plenty of people who would be happy having a minimalist life, and there are those who would choose to see the world. And I believe that there are those who are drawn to doing things; working on stuff that they're interested in. And there are those who do want more stuff, and so will work. All in all, I think there are enough people that things would be fine.
- exclusiv 9y ago
  I agree. I think a lot would move to affordable places where that guaranteed income goes a lot further. If that's true then we aren't going to be as competitive on a global scale. Maybe that's not a big deal, maybe it's a huge deal; I don't know. Anecdotally my friend is part Native-American and gets 4k/mo from the tribe's casino money and they're bumping it up more soon. She's chosen to be a stay at home mom.
IncRnd 9y ago
The question really isn't whether someone person on Hacker News would want to work. A better question would be, "how many would report their work out of an entire country was offered a basic income?" There are already data points for comparison, when that question is asked.
- vertex-four 9y ago
  Most people on Hacker News are really not any different from anyone else in their country - they're just in a different line of work. The idea that you're a better/more moral person if you get paid more is a fallacy. An interesting question is "can we reasonably automate things that people currently get paid less for than a basic income would be, or will we have to pay them more, and if we have to pay them more, what will be the economic effect of that?"
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    It may also work by making basic income really basic, so there’s an incentive to still go out there and specialize.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    >>Most people on Hacker News are really not any different from anyone else in their country - they're just in a different line of work. The idea that you're a better/more moral person if you get paid more is a fallacy. People on HN are significantly different and not even close to a representative sample. No one at any point is saying that HN readers are better or more moral, but there are huge, huge differences in technical skill, intelligence, knowledge, college attendance rates, social skills, empathy, and so forth compared to an average sampling of the population of the United States. I'll leave it up to everyone to decide which direction the arrow points in the above fields.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    "The idea that you're a better/more moral person if you get paid more is a fallacy." You are making arguments against things I never wrote, which is a strawman fallacy.

_jal 9y ago

This is the problem with a lot of economic reasoning. The 'rational actor' construct works in toy models, but is much less useful in reality. I took a couple years off a long time ago. I didn't stop working on stuff. Really, if you pay me, all that means is that I work on what you want me to work on, and maybe show up at particular times. It doesn't motivate me to work, it just motivates me to change topics. I absolutely know people who would never work again. I know other people like me, who do it because they enjoy it. And details matter a lot, and tend to be ignored[1] by simplistic first-principle reasoning. A big part of this is the ratio of those, and how quickly the number of jobs drop. I would fully expect this sort of thing to need tuning as it goes - I personally see the biggest change being a sudden explosion of people with lots of free time. Just as a tiny example, what does this do to the video game market? What about dry cleaners when fewer people wear business-drag? Anyone who makes confident predictions based on econ101-style reasoning is simply dressing their politics up in an argument from authority. [1] What does assortive mating look like under such a scheme - how much status will holding a job gain? Is the income set at an "uncomfortable" level, how will that change over time, what sort of barriers (class, academic, opportunities, etc.) will grow up around it? Are there any incentives to do something useful, even if it isn't what we think of as a 'job'? Details really matter.