Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

> The aim was to see if a guaranteed safety net would help people find jobs

I'm confused, was that ever the expected goal of basic income?

Never a central tenet, but I've seen/heard some conjecture around UBI that it would help lift people out of the poverty trap, and this could help them find a path to fulfillment that for many might lead to a fulfilling job/career that's done as much for passion as profit.

It's not something I've heard strongly voiced or considered, certainly surprised to see it defined as the aim of UBI as this article puts it. But then again there's a million definitions of UBI out there right now.

It seems more like almost the opposite of the expected goal.

My main sympathy for a basic income is that "get people into jobs" so often comes up as an argument against all kinds of progressive changes (environment, shutting down harmful industries, automating bad jobs away, ...).

The goal of a basic income should be to let people without a job live a more fulfilling life.

It isn't, the proposed benefit of a basic income is that it does less to discourage finding jobs than traditional welfare where you lose benefits when you find a job. How many of the people with a UBI got jobs compared to people without a UBI would very much be a question of interest.

Yes, as it lowers marginal tax rates. Currently with welfare, you have a very high marginal tax rate. You earn an additional $20,000 say, but lose the $10,000 you had with welfare. 50% marginal tax rate. Even higher if there's some actual tax on that $20,000.

If there was basic income where you still kept the $10,000, you would have a 0% marginal rate.

It's not clear how the finns designed their system. But Milton Friedman was actually for a form of basic income instead of social support, for this reason.

I don't think at all that a two year study with a tiny subset of a populace would be adequate to produce the desired effect, and I don't think framing it as "find jobs" is sensible either.

But a lot of the UBI movement likes to think that if given a long-term guarantee on a society-wide basis after a "vacation" period where people adjust to having the bottom rung of the hierarchy of needs guaranteed they would pursue higher actualization and often greater economic benefit to the society by doing so.

Its the difference between why a lottery winner will splurge it all in excess and vice and wind up bankrupt again while a hereditary millionaire can live a productive managerial life on top of a corporate hierarchy. The former lived without, had fortunes rain upon them, and treated it like evaporating water to be drowned in. The later had from birth, never went without, and thus never had to fear being without. They didn't know the scarcity or struggle and thus didn't overdose on excess since they always had it.

The opposites also happen. Lottery winners sometimes stay responsible with the money. Rich kids blow their family fortunes and end up destitute. But the disparity between them is the divide between the fleeting sensation of plenty and being immersed in it in perpetuity.

So for UBI advocates, the idea is that immersion in a basic standard of living would enable the masses to behave much like how the billionaire playboy philanthropist does on a smaller scale - learn more, expand your horizons, take more risks, and pursue your passions. If you don't feel like you could ever lose the basics, and everyone has them likewise, nobody is in a struggle to survive that breeds animal instinct anti-rational behavior like payday loans or buying lottery tickets. If you are instead struggling for splendor and prestige rather than food and shelter you have a lot more room to grow as a person, and for those that do they will be much more valuable to society as innovators than burger flippers.

If someone can't put in the effort to get a stable job because they are too busy dealing with the immediate consequences of a lack of income, giving them a handout might be expected to help. And IIRC, we've seen that with one-time cash assistance of a significant amount.

Right, this article seems to be so intentionally missing the point that one has to wonder if it's an attempt at manipulation.

Same here. I've never heard that angle.

I definitely did hear it as once facet of why UBI could be good. Right now, in some places there are people who will lose benefits (I forget which variety) if their income goes above a certain point, so they are disincentivized to seek a better job -- as it would net them less income. One thing I recall reading about UBI was that it removed that _condition_, and so there would be no incentive not to get a job (other than feeling like UBI was "enough", which IMO is reasonable).

Those places would be the US and many anglo-saxon influenced countries. Where it is seen as if you are unemployed then it is a failing on your part, not the job market or any other factors. If you do find a job it better pay a living wage and it better pay now. The state will pull benefits almost immediately once your paperwork goes through. And if the job is temporary or seasonal be prepared to start at square one to resume benefits payments.

The incentives are really screwed up. They do want you to use it and if you do they don't want you to leave it.

I always interpreted 'find jobs' as 'create their own activity without toxic pressure'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com