Hacker News Reader

Comment by robomartin | Hacker News Reader

Maybe I am too obtuse to understand how such things could work.

What happens if nobody has a job?

OK, that's a little extreme. Let's see, a family of five would get 12500 F per month unconditionally. That's probably a pretty good chunk of money for doing nothing.

I see images of five to ten people living together to collectively earn 25000 F per month.

In the same story they talk about limiting executive pay to 12x the salary of the lowest paid employee. Again, I just don't see it. In a global market I just don't see intelligent and capable people not looking past their borders seeking better compensation for what they have to offer.

How can you build a sustainable and competitive society this way? Again, I'll admit to not being mentally equipped to comprehend how this can work. Perhaps someone can educate me.

View on HN

People always want more, so this will allow people to live comfortably while they, for example, acquire a more profitable skill than what they currently have. Then they will earn more, and pay more taxes, and the cycle continues.

Alternatively, the Swiss government may have enough money to invest it all and pay for this out of dividends. Just because the US is broke doesn't mean that everyone is.

> this will allow people to live comfortably while they, for example, acquire a more profitable skill than what they currently have.

Maybe some of them. If American welfare is any indications you'll have generations of people who will live within this free money system, do nothing, learn nothing and demand more and more over time. They will all have iPhones, huge flat screen TV's and never work a day in their lives.

Again, I just don't see it and admit that I don't get it. Nice, but I don't get it.

> If American welfare is any indications you'll have generations of people who will live within this free money system, do nothing, learn nothing and demand more and more over time. They will all have iPhones, huge flat screen TV's and never work a day in their lives.

There has been a five-year over lifetime limit on welfare since the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in '96 that replaced AFDC (Aid for Families with Dependent Children) with TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). And even before then, there was only scant evidence that such a phenomenon occurred.

Do you have a citation for that?

(EDIT: It also allowed states to redirect federal welfare funds to unrelated purposes. Try living on 110/mo in Mississippi, for example. Let alone affording an iPhone. Plus in all states, there is some work requirement. [1])

[1] http://www.mdhs.state.ms.us/ea_tanf.html

Well, maybe i am wrong on it being purely a welfare effect. There are many other inputs in that system. Search youtube on how to make money for having babies as an example. Food stamps are another input. For quite some time Russian immigrants coming into Los Angeles had a reputation for piling into homes/appartments and milking every ounce of available government assistance, even to the extreme of keeping quiet when a relative died in order to retain benefits. In addition to that, they developed an extensive under the table cash black market. They would work for cash, earn government benefits, not pay taxes and make tons of money. They were quite fond of Cadillacs and Mercedes Benz. A couple of friends of mine were cops covering some of these areas of LA. They have stories that would make anyone's head spin.

My point, perhaps, is that people are resoursefull when it comes to these things and come up with amazing ways to game the system. Most recently the LAUSD has been handing out iPads to students. They quickly figured out how to unlock them. It also looks like some of them probably evaporated, surely making their way onto Craigs List or eBay.

What ends up happening is that those who actually live an honest life and end-up supporting untold layers of deadbeats created and empowered by the State.

My cop friends are Democrats to the bone but their "faith" regarding some of these programs was rocked a long time ago because they saw first hand what the programs can turn people into.

I really do want to understand your viewpoint. But in my state (Oregon) which typically ranks near the top of anti-poverty programs, the average one could receive from food stamps and welfare in a family of four is about 950 dollars per month. Assuming you were accepted (post AFDC, there's no guarantee of benefits: it's luck of the draw).

In Mississippi it's about 850 for a family of four with absolutely no income or assets (assuming you get accepted in a state that has one of the lowest acceptance rates).

Neither break 12K a year, and I honestly don't understand how that can be considered exorbitant or supporting the sort of excessive sedentary lifestyle that you suggest is common.

And I don't mean this to be offensive, but, are your cop friends sure that these "welfare" abusers that they witness aren't actually just using that as a front for an illegal pursuit (i.e. drug dealing, undeclared gifts/gambling/taxable proceeds?)

Edit: after five years of benefits, this would decrease to about 548 in Miss. and 558 in Oregon. However, I don't find either figure truly sustainable for that size of family in the long-ish term.

> And I don't mean this to be offensive, but, are your cop friends sure that these "welfare" abusers that they witness aren't actually just using that as a front for an illegal pursuit (i.e. drug dealing, undeclared gifts/gambling/taxable proceeds?)

No offense taken. The picture that was painted for me was one where a segment of welfare recipients seem to be engaged in gaming the system any way they can by tapping into every available program out there. For example, single mothers having multiple kids by different fathers because each kid represents a monthly paycheck. On top of that there's work for cash and, yes, potential criminal activity.

Does this apply to all welfare recipients? Of course not. The vast majority of them probably wish they could get out of the nightmare they fell into through whatever circumstance.

Perhaps my greater point is that simply giving money away with no goals or conditions isn't good at all. It changes the way people think and behave. The most extreme examples of this are lottery winners who's life's are ruined even after winning millions of dollars.

When it comes to welfare I am a proponent of actually investing MORE money on the poor. How? Provide them with a reasonable living wage. The condition would be that they'd have to go to school (for free). The idea is the proverbial "teach a man to fish" concept rather than giving them fish. A one to two year trade education would be a solid stepping stone from which these people could pull out of their circumstances. Of course, there are cases where this would not work. I firmly believe we have a moral and ethical responsibility to take care of people who fall upon hard times and simply can't take care of themselves. We also have a moral and ethical responsibility to make sure that our help does not produce adverse effects (crime, abuse, dependency, devolution, societal decay). To be sure, the topic is wide and complex.

Do you remember where you read that most people on welfare in the US live with expensive hardware but do little work? I'm curious about different ways of providing welfare and the behaviour of people w under each.

The "welfare recipients with plasma TVs" is a common trope that comes up every election, but is (almost) entirely untrue.

I've actually lived on the wrong side of the tracks in a poverty-stricken industrial city.

The reality is that most people don't have big screen TVs. The home of the average poor person that I've seen, welfare or otherwise, is pretty damned frugal. The few that do - and they do exist - finance these luxuries via rent-to-own shops and loans.

You know you're in a poor part of town when suddenly all the payday loan places and rent-to-own places pop up.

As one might expect, these luxuries never actually last very long. Not only do these people not have the actual financial ability to afford them, but they acquired them on predatory rates (either loan or rent-to-own terms). These items are repo'ed quickly.

So, in summary, the bulk of the poor don't live on expensive hardware. There are some that (unwisely) acquire expensive hardware with the help of predatory lenders, but don't get to keep it.

The myth of the ever-idle welfare recipient, munching cheetos while hanging out in front of their big screen TV, is very much just that: a myth.

I haven't (yet) had the need to rely on government benefits, but I grew up in a rural town with a "gilded" quality of class division. The most poor people I knew would honestly save up two weeks to eat out at Subway. It gave me a lot of perspective to see that what was my staple lunch-break food could actually be a luxury to another family.

Obviously, anecdotes don't prove the point, but of the families I've known in that situation, you are completely right. They were far more focused on getting their kids to school with full stomachs than fancy electronics or other status symbols.

This is one of the arguments against Basic Income and related topics i find most biased against lower income workers.

If your goal is to make everyone work, you have to fight wealth accumulation.

You sold a company for 5B$ ? doesnt matter, you should be taxed until you have almost no money, so you have to keep working. Your parents made rich money? tough luck. No inheritance. Get to work.

But I have yet to hear someone propose something like that. Why would you put higher strains on poor people than on rich ones.

My 0.02$

"If your goal is to make everyone work, you have to fight wealth accumulation."

Wealth accumulation is the reason businesses thrive in the first place. Without businesses, who is going to provide jobs for those lower-income workers? The government?

"You sold a company for 5B$ ? doesnt matter, you should be taxed until you have almost no money"

If I knew this would happen, I would most likely move my company overseas. There is a reason IKEA is a non-profit organization and many actors renounce their European country citizenship.

"Your parents made rich money? tough luck. No inheritance. Get to work."

Now you just sound bitter and jealous.

And you sound foolish. He wasn't proposing any of these things. Read his post again, this time properly.

You are a perfect example of why I mostly stay out of HN discussions.

Because when you call people "bitter and jealous", based on misreading their post, you get called "foolish" in return?

Stop whining.

The US is nowhere near broke compared even to most developed countries. The Swiss don't have a trust fund like Norway.

The US could lose half of it's GDP and still be in front of every other nation in terms of wealth. It borrows a lot of money, more than it takes in. But that's based on the past and present growth. It's a fine line the US walks. But you're right, the US is in now way broke. It's like the Donald Trump of countries. Even "broke" it's worth more than you because it has so much earning potential.

People always want more

Based on the reading I've done on the subject, in places where a minimum basic income well into the poverty range was given, people actually just cut back on everything until it covered their expenses, i.e. people preferred poverty to working low-wage jobs. That makes sense to me.

That said...I'm still in favor of a universal minimum basic income, because I always expect social regressions whenever people have little to no experience and culture to mitigate the most harmful effects (c.f. the Internet, Facebook, Reddit, 4chan, etc.).

My sense is that the first generation after a UBI was established would be lazy as hell, but the children would be less so, because work, art, etc. do produce meaningful life benefits for those that participate. By the third or fourth generation, life everywhere would be much, much better for—literally—everyone.

Anyway...my $0.02.

Do these readings also say that free markets auto-regulate themselves?

I'd love some citations for/links to your reading. I only ever hear about that small Canadian experiment where the result was supposedly that only fewer teenagers dropped out of school to work and new parents stopped working for longer, or something.

I'd really like to know where are those places that tried minimum basic income, and if they were unconditional (or if people did lose money by working).

One thing to consider is that today in Switzerland if you don't work you can already get around 2000CHF/mo in social programs and health insurance subsidies. (Most) people work nevertheless, if only because working brings you much more than a wage.

Every adult gets 2500/month, so a family of 2 adults + 3 children would get 5000/month which is nowhere near enough in most places in Switzerland.

I was thinking of a family with five adults. No reason for the children to leave such a profitable nest.

The other scenario is a group of adult friends or relatives.

This raises another interesting question. Will there be a population explosion in Switzerland in the medium term?

Swiss immigration rules are quite strict, maybe a bit relaxed for UE nationals, but still strict. Afaik you generally need to have a job offer in order to move to Swizerland and take residence.

Check for example this sites/news: http://www.swissworld.org/en/faq/living_in_switzerland/ http://world.time.com/2013/05/01/bachmann-on-switzerland/ http://voices.yahoo.com/how-move-united-states-switzerland-3...

And Swiss don't like too much immigrats, and even cross border workers: http://www3.varesenews.it/english/articolo.php?id=184350

I doubt that will be a problem. There is no incentive to get more children. Because the children will only get their own money once they become adults. And so they can't be forced to give up any of the money. So basically, if you are 18 and get the money, and your parent want you to pay money to stay at their house, you can just leave and rent your own place...

That seems like a bit of a sideshow, considering they'd get exactly the same (combined) amount of money if they weren't living together.

What makes it any different from a bunch of working adults living in a large house and splitting the rent?

Well, families often do a better job putting up with each other than roommates do...

I think centralized living has huge benefits and should be encouraged. This would be a good start.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com