
YC set to launch one-year minimum income pilot project to figure out logistics - Tomte
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/can-high-profile-bay-area-tech-incubators-basic-income-plan-work/
======
gjkood
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed
him for a lifetime.

Along with the daily fish, does it makes sense to provide some sort of
vocational training that an otherwise healthy person can take advantage of?

If a person was not able to take advantage of early education for whatever
reason, but is currently physically healthy, there is still opportunity to
provide for himself and his family by learning some vocational skills.

Choosing Oakland in particular has interesting connotations, considering that
it is a major industrial center where there may be lots of opportunity for
skilled workers.

Maybe even a reversal of the automation movement in favor of using basic labor
for many repetitive tasks in order to achieve this altruistic goal.

Of course, there are still a great many people who truly could take advantage
of the basic income experiment because their other options are severely
limited for whatever reason.

~~~
laksjd
There are already lots of great free (or very cheap) ways to educate yourself
but all of them require time and energy. If you spend most of your time and
energy working an awful job just to survive you can't take advantage of these
opportunities.

Take away the need to invest time and energy into basic survival and you can
suddenly take advantage of a lot of cool things that were previously not
accessible to you.

~~~
Avshalom
even ignoring the grind that is an awful job: Community College is cheap and
has all sorts of vocational training... if you can take Monday Wednesday
Friday off between 9:30 and 10:15 then again between 1:00 and 1:45.

The intersection of Jobs-That-Can-Work-With-That-Schedule and Jobs-That-Can-
Pay-Enough-For-CC-AND-Food-AND-Shelter is tiny and flooded with existing
students.

~~~
jwdunne
There are people out there that wouldn't be able to cope with that. If you're
on low income and have a family to support and, equally as important, nurture,
then you are gonna struggle to find time, money and energy for community
college.

With the strains of poverty, health issues increase. Sometimes this could lead
to involvement via social services. At this point, education is a pipe dream.

I've been there. Still am there. I could spend the evening reading educational
books. Sometimes I do but always at the expense of what needs to be done.
Always st the expense of the little family time I have (I see my kids perhaps
one hour tops weekdays - that is a luxury compared to what I used to have).

This is with a system where the state, currently begrudgingly, helps me out a
great deal. I whince thinking about countries where the social security net
isn't as helpful.

It requires a lot of optimism to keep yourself a float in a situation like
this. College, through my eyes, is a wonderful idea that is a bit too on the
optimistic side at the moment, even for me.

------
jasonwen
One year is too limited in my opinion. If you want to see what people will do
with basic income, you have to give them the feeling the money is near
infinite. One year looks to me its not enough to drop everything, as you will
know it will soon come to an end. The paychological barrier for me would be at
least 5+ years.

Then again if I know it will come to an end in xx years, I will feel more
inclined to work harder. It's like a deadline.

~~~
pekko
See [http://blog.ycombinator.com/moving-forward-on-basic-
income](http://blog.ycombinator.com/moving-forward-on-basic-income): this one-
year study is just a pilot, it works as a preparation for a longer-term one.

~~~
chirau
What if they don't tell the people when the income is going to stop coming in?

~~~
kiba
Doesn't seems all that ethical thing to do even though it would give a better
picture of how it would work.

~~~
Fomite
They've said they're working with an external IRB. Not telling them would be a
_massive_ issue for informed consent, and at least if I was sitting on said
IRB would generate a pretty firm "Um...no."

------
youngButEager
Can I make a suggestion?

I have several acquaintances who work in the trades (carpentry, house framing,
fence building, concrete driveways/sidewalks/porches building, window/door
installers, painters, etc.).

Buying and rehabbing real estate over the past several years, I've met a lot
of these folks.

Most of their ability to earn a living wage has been decimated by unchecked
immigration.

So I suggest we start there -- give all the tradespeople in our area, who were
born here and have now seen their livelihoods decimated -- a living wage.

That way, we can tell them "yes we've fully endorsed unchecked migration, and
your jobs are gone, but here -- have this living wage."

 _What a nice gesture on the part of we the elite!_

~~~
ilaksh
Its not the immigration its the illegal pay and lack of benefits that they are
given. The construction industry is based on underpaying migrants. If you have
been rehabing homes then you certainly took advantage of this too.

Look in the mirror.

~~~
youngButEager
Actually, I cannot possibly 'take advantage' of illegal labor -- maybe the
people who I hire to do the work do that.

If you're rehabbing properties in this area (Silicon Valley) you cannot give
work to people unless they have a Contractor's license, which you can verify
here:

[http://www.cslb.ca.gov/](http://www.cslb.ca.gov/)

There are many reasons for _only_ hiring licensed contractors:

1) your homeowners or commercial insurance will not be able to 'weasel out' of
covering a loss if the contractor has an in-effect license (who got injured or
who caused injury or any type of loss, really)

2) you can check their fixed address so that if you need to serve them (for
small claims, or a lawsuit, etc.) -- you know you can find them

3) no language barrier, so it's possible to 100% eliminate any possible
misunderstanding of the outcome that the hired work needs to achieve

In 2005 a buddy of mine hired a presumptive illegal from the Home Depot
parking lot. I alerted my friend "not sure if you've seen this yet, but the
guy is using a hand saw to cut and hang your sheetrock"

Anyone dumb enough to hire an illegal probably deserves a guy who cuts and
hangs sheetrock with a hand saw

Mein gott.

~~~
ams6110
How do you think sheetrock is supposed to be cut?

You score it with a knife and snap it for long straight cuts.

You use a hand saw for complicated or non-straight cuts. Or you might use a
small rotary power tool but it really doesn't make any difference.

~~~
youngButEager
?? How do I think sheetrock is supposed to be cut? Did you _really_ intend to
ask that?

You ask me that after I said:

"Anyone dumb enough to hire an illegal probably deserves a guy who cuts and
hangs sheetrock with a hand saw"

I think the point you missed was "he's insinuating using a hand saw is not the
correct way, that's why he said Anyone dumb enough to hire an illegal probably
deserves a guy who cuts and hangs sheetrock with a hand saw"

------
christinecha
I really want to know how the conversation went with the folks in the control
group.

"Hey, we're doing a study where we give money to a bunch of people... Not you,
though."

Ha!

~~~
Rinum
The control group could be blinded (they're unaware what is being studied).

------
TheCowboy
Would individuals be restricted from using any government social welfare
programs during this period? Many advocates propose funding basic income by
disbanding current safety nets.

If recipients are living in public housing, collecting food stamps, accepting
federal student loans, or any other form of indirect government aid, then it
skews the results.

~~~
karmicthreat
It might skew it, but YC is probably trying to answer a more fundamental
question. If people are provided a minimum lifestyle what will they do? I
don't think anyone really knows if it will be a golden age of entrepreneurs
and self improvement. Or if people will just sit on the couch, have kids till
they can't afford them, become addicted to drugs.

~~~
daveguy
The former. The latter is a racist caricature of welfare.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Lets interpret the claim charitably - people on welfare have reduced work
effort, increased fertility, and increased drug consumption. Do you assert
that any of those claims are false?

~~~
daveguy
The assertion is that none of those are inherent qualities of a group. Reduced
work effort is a chicken egg issue. Of course people on welfare are going to
have reduced "work effort" \-- joblessness is probably what made you have to
get it in the first place.

Same with drug consumption. I would question any "higher drug use" measure as
selection bias -- investment bankers aren't generally being drug tested are
they? That doesn't mean the overwhelming majority are not eager to earn a
productive living.

I think it would be great to drug test for it (but damn expensive and not very
libertarian). I bet you'd see a lot of well off people not opting for the free
income because they "don't need it" whereas they'd line up for it without a
drug test.

~~~
yummyfajitas
A further claim is that increasing welfare reduces work effort. Is this
disputed?

I don't know why we are discussing drug tests for welfare, but simple
arithmetic provides a very low bar for them to be cost effective. Google
suggests a drug test costs $10-30. If welfare costs $15,000/year, then you
only need to have a 0.2% positive rate for it to be worth it.

Do you think folks on welfare do drugs at a rate lower than 0.2%?

~~~
chockablock
> you only need to have a 0.2% positive rate for it to be worth it.

What do you mean 'worth it'? Do you think that the benefits to society of
giving someone $15k/yr in welfare are $0?

If so, why not argue for just abolishing social welfare programs altogether--
you can even save yourself the cost of all those drug tests!

If not, why do you think society should forgo those benefits because the
recipient failed a drug test?

~~~
maerF0x0
I think it was more of a "follow the money" kind of argument. Governments want
to collect as much and pay out as little.

One way to pay out less is to create a barrier such as drug testing. according
to the math, drug testing is "worth it" to that end. Its also fairly
politically acceptable compared other more extreme examples such as lowering
the welfare amount, random denials or killing poor people.

Naturally, I'm not in favor of any of those options.

------
themartorana
"I think that there’s a culture at YC that just making money isn’t that
interesting."

That's a tad disingenuous. I'm sure "anymore" might clarify it, but it's easy
to say when you are rich.

~~~
mattkrisiloff
well fwiw, I'm a staff member, wouldn't consider myself rich, and that culture
is what keeps me wanting to work there--I'd be pretty bored if it was more
like a traditional VC firm.

~~~
themartorana
Fair enough. Apologies if that felt disrespectful.

It just seemed silly language to me, especially in light of the program
focusing on how money can alleviate the majority of poverty's struggles.

~~~
nickfromseattle
I think it enhances the message of the BI experiment. The folks at YC have
enough money to allow pursuit of their interests. Another poster quoted a
study indicating there are 50 million people below the poverty line in
America. If bills were not a concern, how could those people impact society by
following their interests in entrepreneurship, science, literature, art, etc?

------
Phithagoras
YC blog post here [http://blog.ycombinator.com/moving-forward-on-basic-
income](http://blog.ycombinator.com/moving-forward-on-basic-income)

------
sandworm101
Imho any basic income program must be universal. It won't survive if it is
seen as handouts to the poor. This both stigmatizes those who receive it and
opens the program to abuse. Everyone should receive the income, rich and poor.
That ensure that those in power (the rich) take ownership of the program and
protect it.

Nor should the income be withdrawn as a form of punishment. If we start
picking and choosing then the incentive is always to cut away the least
powerful, disenfranchised criminals being the least powerful of all.

------
matt2000
I don't understand how the math on basic income is supposed to work. If we
gave this amount of money to every person in the US it would cost $7.2
Trillion dollars, roughly double the entire US federal budget. How is this
supposed to work? Do only certain people qualify for basic income?

~~~
JonFish85
I've found that doing the math absolutely doesn't factor into this. That's
where it falls apart--it's not the most efficient if you're giving money to
people only to have to reclaim it from 90% of them. It's a fun thought
experiment but at a national scale the math really falls apart because there
isn't an external source of funding to grab money from.

~~~
tamana
Did you know that the US has Social Security and Medicaid and taxes already,
taking money and paying money?

------
larrywright
I'm not sure I get the logic of doing this in one of the most expensive areas
to live in the US.

~~~
acdha
Wouldn't the argument be that people trying to get by there would be among
those most likely to be forced to make poor long-term decisions due to short-
term cash crunches?

If rent's high, you have less flexibility to make lifestyle changes since you
need to work more hours / jobs just to pay rent (making it hard to take
classes), invest in things which will save money over the long term, or do
things like move closer to work/school to save time.

------
grizzles
I hate to be critical because I love the core idea, and YCRs wonderful
corporate generosity. However, this is path dependency in action, in all it's
anti-intellectual glory. The only value that will be extracted here is the
publicity/marketing value. If they can somehow leverage that into some kind of
state or federal government supported largesse, I will happily stand
corrected.

But in the absence of that, as scientific experiments go, and dressing it up
as such is a waste of money. I'm sure enough people have told them that by
now. YCR says it's for figuring out the logistics, which implies some kind of
future action. The only problem is if they wanted to do this correctly, this
isn't going to be very useful way of figuring out the logistics for eg. people
who speak Swahili. See my comment here for more info on why:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11812563](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11812563)

I would love to be wrong but I doubt it. The study will no doubt make for
interesting reading - if it's published.

~~~
stephengillie
The financial side of the project is definitely...interesting. Another poster
pointed out that tax-funded UBI would work like a redistribution of wealth.
Almost any other way - funded by Angel/VC donations, Kickstarter, using
another tax pool (having Congress pay for it), taking loans or increasing the
US Federal debt, or even by pillaging other countries - would still just be a
redistribution of wealth.

There is one other way - Expansion of the overall money supply. But this is
well-known to result in nearly equivalent inflation. Humans somehow want a
certain percentage of all money - not just an arbitrary amount. This
percentage may be extremely small for some - 0.0000001% of all money, or less
- but when the total number of dollars increases, each person wants an
equivalent percentage increase in the total number of dollars they get. This
may be Bitcoin or ISK or priceless paintings instead of dollars, or whichever
currency of the day.

Has there been a UBI monetary-policy model produced that doesn't invoke large
inflation or heavy wealth redistribution?

------
ilaksh
Most places won't let you rent without making 2.5 times the rent. So for 2k
that's $800. In Oakland that gets you an SRO, a single room, or you can live
in a box truck.

[https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/eby/apa?query=oakland&ma...](https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/eby/apa?query=oakland&max_price=800)

~~~
rogerdpack
Yeah I thought that too somehow...they say "$1-$2K" and I'm like...is that
really a basic income wage?

~~~
rogerdpack
Though in retrospect that's for one person, maybe they could rent a room? I
assume if a family is on this they each get the $1K? kids too? unclear...

overall the experiment is "slightly different" than giving the poor yearly tax
refunds (ex: it gives money to the rich and the poor) so...maybe useful :)

------
mathattack
Great idea. I hope it works. Even if it doesn't work, if it provides
experimental data, that will be valuable.

One line I didn't like from the article:

 _It’s obviously difficult to lift people out of poverty. According to the
White House, as of 2012 (decades after President Lyndon Johnson 's "War on
Poverty"), approximately 15 percent of Americans (or 49.7 million people,
including 13.4 million children) live below the poverty line. Worse still,
"only about half of low-income Americans make it out of the lowest income
distribution quintile over a 20-year period." (As the old saying goes: "It’s
expensive to be poor.")_

I think this can be very misleading. Is the poverty line a good definition?
And if everyone's standard of living rises over 20 years, is it an issue to be
in the bottom quintile? I'm not saying it is or isn't, just that it's very
shabby statistics. (Maybe I just shouldn't read articles like this)

------
simplegeek
I tried really hard to find papers by Elizabeth Rhodes on basic income but I
could not.

I was just wondering if she did lot of research on the topic that made her the
most suitable candidate for the job.

------
11thEarlOfMar
One aspect that I've not heard discussed is the likelihood that a portion of
those being granted a basic income will be exploited for their new-found cash.
Has this been considered at YC and if so, what are their approaches to
minimizing it?

~~~
dclowd9901
This is why I wish the sample size was bigger, closer to that magic 2000
person populace that gives a relatively random cross section. I just don't
think they're going to get the value they need out of this limited experiment.
2000*24000 = 48million... I'm sure they have that kind of scratch laying
around.

~~~
rogerdpack
Yes, but to truly understand the implications wouldn't it have to be
like...the size of a whole country?

------
nickpsecurity
I'm concerned about bias in this in form of the Hawthorne effect for one group
and something akin to Learned Helplessness (or self-fulfilling prophecy) for
the other.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect)

The Hawthorne effect can apply if they tell the group receiving the money
about the expected benefits of basic income. They know the spotlight is on
them. They're also getting special treatment. They might work more and do
better in this situation than if basic income was the norm similar to how
welfare is the norm but doesn't get people out of poverty. Whereas, it's the
opposite if the control group is told about the scheme: people in an economic
rut with likely negative outlook that just got slighted on basic income and
will be watched to see if they will fail. They'll likely fail either by
default or barely trying although some might be motivated to work harder to
stick it to observers.

If Y Combinator is reading this, I suggest countering it with careful
presentation to each party. Especially to the control group. Tell them they're
simply being observed as part of a study on poverty in Oakland and where
people end up over time. Absolutely no talk of basic income or another group.

For benefiting group, countering Hawthorne effect is less my expertise. Old
trick of making both groups feel like they're getting special treatment or
advantage can't apply here. Perhaps water down the effect by describing it as
one of a series of experiments... with descriptions of various approaches...
to help lift people out of poverty along with theory of each. Mention
positive, neutral, and negative outcomes that are common on existing welfare.
Mention the potential the new approach offers. Mention that they're selected
to try it for a year with the results entirely on them but observed to inform
future studies. Effect is still there but with a balanced presentation instead
of overly-positive or specific push from researchers presenting it.
Information overload might even drown out Hawthorne effect to make them focus
on whatever is last thing said.

The control group I'm pretty sure on but other possibilities are speculation.
Consider how to handle benefit group carefully. Regardless of methodology, I'm
glad to see YC doing it as it might help some people regardless.

~~~
maerF0x0
too late now but in future ones maybe they could do 3 groups and pay 2 groups
in various amounts. One group gets the "full amount", another a "half amount"
, the third nothing. Tell the first two groups they're getting the Full
amount. see if there is a difference in responses.

~~~
nickpsecurity
That's an interesting expansion on it. Would be especially interesting to see
difference between full and half.

------
JoeAltmaier
I'm confused. Isn't this already being done various places around the world
already? (e.g. Alaska, Puerto Rico) Why not study people in those places?
Better yet, nearly everybody in those places is getting the benefit, so the
experiment isn't poisoned by the culture (you're the only one in your
neighborhood getting a benefit - others treat you differently)

~~~
rogerdpack
They kind of dismiss "other places that do this" by saying they want to see
how it'd work in the US

[https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-
income](https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income)

I had a similar initial question, since I heard once that Germans (?) already
have a basic income system in place, though possibly only for the poor
($500/month plus housing or something like that). Though I suppose "that's
Germans, not us" or what not.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Huh. Last time I looked, Alaska was part of the US.

~~~
EduardoBautista
So is puerto rico

~~~
JoeAltmaier
In a sense

------
ThomPete
I hope they will be taking the Hawthorne effect into account here.

I am fundamentally a proponent of UBI but the last thing we want are
experiments in pseudo environments.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect)

~~~
unclesaamm
This is a huge issue that is very hard to solve at this point. The obvious
solution, not telling people about the experiment, is out. It reinforces the
skeptics who think of this as a way for YC to brand itself more
philanthropically, because from a research perspective it's just expensive,
grandiose hogwash.

Edit to say that I too support UBI, and actually helped pass a resolution at
my Congressional District's Democratic Party convention in favor of UBI.

~~~
ThomPete
Yes.

Sounds like we have the same concern despite our support.

The last thing I want is useless data. The hawthorne effect is actually at
play in many other situations and is generally an underestimated issue with
qualitative research.

------
sacrilicious
Is this a minimum so that the 2k number is whatever the net would be, so that
people who currently have jobs would have their income supplemented?

I was very interested in Even as a company designed to approach challenges
like these. I can't imagine how difficult it is to take on a study like this,
I'm rooting for them to be successful and hope they share the resulting data.
It should always be close to our thoughts - lack of a living wage causing long
commutes from soon-to-be gentrified neighborhoods, all in the shadow of
Chomsky's Responsibility of Intellectuals.

------
traviswingo
I'm very interested to see the overall outcome of this research. While the
intentions are good, my initial expectations of this are not very high. I look
forward to be proven wrong.

------
CPLX
> "Overall the idea is to take money we make from YC [and], rather than all of
> the partners cashing out... putting it into research," Krisiloff told Ars.
> "I think that there’s a culture at YC that just making money isn’t that
> interesting."

I do understand the intended meaning of that sentence, and clearly it's more
than admirable that these people are putting their money where their mouth is,
but I really wish SV people would stop talking this way as it's tone deaf and
counterproductive.

Several billion for them and a million and a half for a few people in Oakland
implies that they do still find money somewhat interesting.

~~~
loceng
This experimenting may give them insight into what life and how behaviours
present themselves when people are being supported, and then give them a
heads-up knowing where people are then willing to spend their cash - on
necessities as well as extra spending money (if they are given it).

That's invaluable data and if they can use profits from their ecosystem to
support a growing community/ecosystem that supports this, and then discover or
create increasing productivity within that community then the model could
replicate and be adopted by wider regions.

In reality it does mean giving away a % of earnings to the masses - like a
tax, however if that % is less than what people pay on average currently in
taxes to government, and the productivity level is higher - then it should
naturally compete and takeover (save status quo systems trying to block and
cause friction).

~~~
tim333
>In reality it does mean giving away a % of earnings

Not necessarily. Part of the reason for this research is figuring what to do
if the robots replace us for the most part. In that situation wages would
likely be low and a lot of the value would move to the market cap of the
leading tech stocks that controlled things. The government could tax that, as
cgt or wealth tax or similar, rather than wages.

~~~
loceng
Right, thanks for clarifying - I had meant earnings of a company as well (or
any task that gets done and has a 'profit' associated); perhaps earnings
wasn't an appropriate word to for me to use.

------
sjg007
It might take more than a year... And is this more than the dole? Basic income
for me is 100k a year.. So that means starting a startup.

~~~
rogerdpack
I guess the question they're trying to answer is "will poor people use this as
a means to step up" because...for somebody already making 100K/yr I'm not sure
how much effect the extra $12 or $15K is going to have, honestly. I mean nicer
vacations? a slightly better house? The only real interesting data point to me
is for the poor people, does it allow them to "step up". It might, today's US
dole just provides at most food and shelter, so perhaps they'll use the money
to ... get some education. Of course, if that were the case wouldn't they
already be using their yearly "tax refund" to go and get education? Most
people don't seem particularly adept at that for some reason...

------
secfirstmd
I think this is to be welcomed but I would also be interested if YC published
a study on the tax arrangements used by its companies. Inequality is heavily
linked to reduced government big budgets caused the culture and abuse of
offshore trusts, the double Irish etc etc. Minimum income is important for the
future but governments have to be actually able to collect the revenue in the
first place...

~~~
Ressuder
Do you believe that there are any illegal tax arragements used by YC's
companies? Because I have to say that if there is not, the problem is on the
governments side - not theirs, and trying to have the business side of things
solve that kind of problem seems really strange.

------
ulrikmoe
Control group or not. If YC wanted a scientific experiment, then they should
have conducted it in silence.

~~~
scrollaway
Why?

~~~
rogerdpack
To avoid the Hawthorne effect.

~~~
scrollaway
Operating in silence would not avoid it.

------
awt
Why not just have a YC charity?

~~~
dev1n
Good question. I believe the thinking behind the UBI experiment is that YC
wants to specifically do an experiment. Not start a charity. Maybe down the
line YC would consider starting a charity but I don't think that's in their
gameplan. This is specifically to answer a very explicit question. Charities
don't normally do that sort of thing.

------
jgalt212
YC's attempt at delaying the coming proletariat uprising.

------
LargeCompanies
Can you live off of 2k in San Fran?

~~~
Avshalom
Oakland, and: probably not very well. but you can still work, you can stop
spending every day stressed about how your entry level retail job isn't giving
you enough hours, or you can afford to set two or three days of the week as
"unavailable and take some classes. You can stop worrying that taking the day
off to interview for a job will be the difference between making rent that
month.

Although for reference 2k a month before taxes is the equivalent of a $12/hr
40hr/wk job. I don't live in Oakland but here in Albuquerque thats considered
a pretty good job.

~~~
LargeCompanies
yeah or you could be smart and take that money and the time it gives you to
either learn a skill that will make live a ton more comfortable and or start a
business that makes you and employees money.

I am very happy living here in Maryland as cost of living is inexpensive and
govt. IT jobs are plentiful and the pay is good.

~~~
Avshalom
That would be the take some classes option, yes, and in many places even 1k a
month before taxes would be enough to say "fuck work" entirely and focus on
learning. I suspect 2k in Oakland is only enough to say "fuck full-time work".

------
simbalion
They'll do nothing and buy drugs and alcohol.

People have been doing that with free money since forever. You can't package
the free money in a different way and expect different results.

~~~
dang
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11976433](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11976433)
and marked it off-topic.

------
logicallee
I liked it better when Y Combinator was giving this kind of money[1] out to
founders who could use it to build a business. Old text: "In 2005, Y
Combinator developed a new model of startup funding. Twice a year we invest a
small amount of money (average $18k) in a large number of startups (currently
82)" I note that $2k/month for 12 months is $24k, so that's more than their
old investment size.

Meanwhile, now, it's calling its investments of $120K a "small amount of
money"[2], while calling this kind of money ($24K for a year) a basic "income"
and not actually treating it as an investment. This bothers me.

[1]
[http://web.archive.org/web/20120614131411/http://ycombinator...](http://web.archive.org/web/20120614131411/http://ycombinator.com/)

[2] [http://www.ycombinator.com/](http://www.ycombinator.com/)

~~~
aphextron
Agreed. I'm a broke developer who would love nothing more than a small living
stipend to work on my own projects and contribute to open source. If I had
just enough to get by and be able to code all day I would be so happy.

~~~
jlg23
So basically you are one who would benefit from a basic income. Why is a
"living stipend to work on [your] own projects" better than a basic income
which too would allow you to work on your own projects?

~~~
logicallee
I hope with a little thought, you can come to see the difference between
formally investing in a startup which is trying to get off the ground, and
handing someone an income no questions asked...

To put it in simple terms, you get what you pay for. If you invest in
someone's startups, they'll deliver a startup (or fail); if you invest in
someone's lifestyle, they'll deliver a lifestyle (or fail).

It's what makes a broke college student asking their parents for some money
different from a homeless person who has just spent the money he had left on
alcohol, asking for some money.

I am probably running a high risk of being misinterpreted. When a programmer
becomes homeless and needs money, then that money is different from when
someone who got out of prison for beating someone up has no money.

basic income makes it sound like the latter; whereas building a business is a
lot more like the former.

you can disagree, but please do so eloquently.

~~~
jlg23
> To put it in simple terms, you get what you pay for. If you invest in
> someone's startups, they'll deliver a startup (or fail); if you invest in
> someone's lifestyle, they'll deliver a lifestyle (or fail).

Whether this is true or not is exactly what needs to be figured out. So far,
this is just a prejudice.

> When a programmer becomes homeless and needs money, then that money is
> different from when someone who got out of prison for beating someone up has
> no money.

And if that person just out of prison was a programmer? Would that change
something? What exactly makes a programmer better than anyone who served his
time and deserves a chance?

> I hope with a little thought [...] you can disagree, but please do so
> eloquently

Sorry, neither thinking nor eloquence are my forte. But I did indeed work with
homeless people and ex-convicts. Try it and you might see they are people too.

~~~
logicallee
one of the great business discoveries of the past few hundred years is that
people respond to incentives. I won't respond to the rest of your comments.

------
simbalion
This is the stupidest idea ever, for a lot of reasons that anyone can find in
a basic class or a few web searches on economics.

Why did this get voted on in the netherlands? Why is this being tried in
America? This is dumber than communism.

------
simbalion
I'd like to know if the people responsible for promoting this idea will be
punished for the lives that are going to be inevitably destroyed?

The last time we did something this stupid with predictable chaotic results
required a corrupt president and retired general. So apparently it has gotten
easier since then, to convince people that the shit they're eating is ice
cream.

------
simbalion
I'd bet money that most of the people will spend their free dollars on drugs
and alcohol.

~~~
skybrian
I'd take your bet. There are studies showing otherwise.

"This study documented large, positive, and sustainable impacts across a wide
range of outcomes including assets, earnings, food security, mental health,
and domestic violence. It found no evidence of impacts on alcohol or tobacco
use, crime, or inflation." [1]

But that was in Kenya so maybe it would be different somewhere else?

[1] [https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-
directly](https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directly)

~~~
simbalion
I concede, under different economic conditions a program like this might be
very successful, but in America it will attract lazy people like flies to
shit.

~~~
dang
You've already posted many uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments to HN. That's
not what this site is for, so please don't do that. Instead, please read the
site guidelines and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

~~~
simbalion
I did read them before making any posts. I apologize and I'll try to ensure my
comments have substance.

I dont recall ever being 'uncivil'. My problem is usually being too kind, in
fact.

------
simbalion
"If you're low on income and have a family to support" then you made poor life
choices and natural selection comes into play.

Like it or not it is a force of nature.

~~~
jwdunne
Right, because you know my life well enough to make that kind of judgement.

It's a nice, clever cop out but ultimately a cop out. Bicyclist gets hit by a
car. Loses his legs. Did he make poor life choices? I wouldn't say so. Say
that same bicyclist has built a career as a great door to door sales man. Now
he's on hard times. Did he still make poor life choices? Should we, then, all
avoid bicycles and work in door to door sales, even if those two things happen
to be things people enjoy and, on the whole, beneficial?

You can think of an unlimited number of scenarios where someone has fallen on
hard times through no fault of their own. In fact, the most callous and
unhelpful thing to say is "you made poor life choices bro" like you even know
what you're taking about.

~~~
simbalion
Are you kidding? Riding a bicycle in the street is the very definition of a
poor life choice.

Haha I got downvoted, probably by people who ride bikes.

Hey I love bikes, bikes need their own lane. When I grew up the government
told me I could not ride my bike on the sidewalk anymore, so I stopped riding
bikes. People who ride bikes in the street get hit by cars all the time. You
accept the risks of the activities you participate in. Don't whine about how
unfair it is. If you aren't willing to accept those risks then you should not
engage in risky behavior.

~~~
turar
You don't need to ride a bike to get crippled by a car accident. You can choke
on a piece of food while eating dinner. You can fall in the shower awkwardly
and get paralyzed.

~~~
Fomite
You can get any one of a number of infections.

