3 ms·
Particularly when they ignore the largest data set we already have - the state pensions. They are a basic income within a fixed exchange rate area by age rathe
by neilwilson 2y ago
Particularly when they ignore the largest data set we already have - the state pensions.
They are a basic income within a fixed exchange rate area by age rather than location. There are trillions of data points across decades of provision. With compulsory retirement and changes removing compulsory retirement.
The results are clear. People tend to stop working once they receive it, even if they have the option to continue.
An inconvenient truth.
And the result is that the age the pension becomes available has to be pushed higher to sustain it. Therefore the alternative time uses are insufficiently productive to be of help overall.
If it was a viable proposition there should be a virtuous cascade driving the pension age down, not up.
- em-bee 2y agofunny, this sister comment here makes the exact opposite argument: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43639593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43639593 but even if you are right about retired people stopping to work, you also need to consider their age, and maybe the feeling that they have earned it after working for decades? the same isn't true for young people, so the comparison is not conclusive.
- neilwilson 2y agoWhat age do you think that “feeling” kicks in and how do you “feel” about policy operating according to vague feelings? I’m old enough to have income generating assets but not enough to call it a day completely. Reduce the state pension age to 18 (which is what a Universal Basic Income is) and I will. Then you’ll be working to support me and the tax will have to be high enough to force you to generate a surplus that can be passed on to me. That’s how UBI will work in reality.