
Basic Income Research Proposal - craigcannon
https://basicincome.ycr.org/blog
======
vasco
I would speculate that any end date on this scenario will invalidate results.
What a person does if it is guaranteed a job for life vs 5 years is wildly
different, as you'll need to make sure when those 5 years are up, you'll be
ready to enter the job market again, etc. I believe the same will happen with
basic income. If we want to study where people gravitate to more fulfilling
jobs, feel happier and so on, you need to guarantee them that stability
forever. Otherwise people will just rationalize that they got some free money
for a while and will not behave in the same way.

~~~
laser
If the government guarantees a basic income, you're really only guaranteed (at
best) until the next election cycle. Just recently, seven years after its
passing, the ACA was nearly reverted, which would have kicked millions of
people off government-subsidized health insurance plans.

~~~
staunch
Pensions are a great use-case for smart contracts. I would feel much safer
having my retirement assured by a blockchain than a bureaucrat.

~~~
Falell
How would this work? As I understand it pensions are almost never fully funded
when they begin because the costs would be prohibitive. Can a smart contract
guarantee that funds that are not available now will be made available at a
later date?

~~~
gnaritas
It wouldn't work, almost nothing people want to do with smart contract can
actually work because those people tend not to actually understand what a
smart contract is or what it can actually do and what it can't do. Virtually
every smart contract proposal is DOA due to a misunderstanding of their
nature.

~~~
staunch
What's missing from your claim is any justification for it all. You're just
claiming, on zero authority, that it's not possible. So enlighten us.

Why do you think it's impossible to encode the mechanics of a pension in a
smart contract-based system?

~~~
gnaritas
I didn't need to, the comment I replied to already addressed a valid why.
Smart contracts can't enforce access to funds without locking the funds up
from other use, and that's not how things work in the real world. Pensions
aren't savings accounts where funds are locked up ready to be used in a black
box. They can't interact with the real world without trusted oracles, but we
already have that in the real world and they're only real use is when they can
do something deterministic on chain. In short, they're largely hype without a
real problem to solve... so far.

~~~
staunch
You're just claiming it's impractical today, not technically infeasible for
any reason.

1\. Pensions don't currently work like this

There are many thousands of different pension systems across the world.

It stands to reason that you could create new system, and if it had
significantly attractive advantages, people would use it.

2\. Trusted oracles are a problem

Yup, we need more decentralized services that smart contracts can take
advantage of. Wait a few years, they're coming.

3\. Smart contracts are only useful for deterministic changes

Making deterministic change is precisely what you want. Do you mean statically
defined? Because that's obviously not correct. And are you considering a new
system specifically designed for pensions?

Virtually all innovative technology is "hype" until it isn't. I agree we have
a ways to go.

~~~
gnaritas
Hence my final words, so far...

> Making deterministic change is precisely what you want.

Yes, but that's a problem when you have to interact with the real world which
isn't.

------
ctdonath
This is a test of charity, not UBI.

1\. The money involved is voluntarily donated, not confiscated from taxpayers
- an essential difference between tax-funded vs charity.

2\. 3000 recipients is vanishingly small on a state or federal level. When
_everyone_ gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that
"free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential
goods/services rising to match (say, basic rent rising to $1000/mo).

3\. Many who currently produce wealth to make ends meet - paying income-scaled
taxes included - may very well be enticed to "go Galt" by seeking a self-
sufficient lifestyle where $UBI/mo covers all cash needs without one having to
get a job per se. (I find this option quite attractive.)

4\. Old aphorism: "tax what you want less of, subsidize what you want more
of." UBI implements/enforces this by punishing the productive and rewarding
the idle. Yes, some people will use the opportunity to do laudable activities
- which won't necessarily contribute to the economy. Yes, some people will use
this to bridge current welfare-to-work transition issues - which are better
handled by narrowly fixing that bridging problem _without_ having to involve
the entire population. Yes, more people will wonder why they're pulling other
people's economic weight, and consider the merits of humble low-income living.

5\. I realize Y Combinator is in the business of giving money to people to
encourage productivity. Methinks they're too used to working with the rare
hyper-productive, and don't grok how many people are quite content with low-
cost no-effort zero-productivity living.

~~~
billmalarky
>When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that
"free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential
goods/services rising to match (say, basic rent rising to $1000/mo).

At first glance this seems intuitively correct, but I'd encourage anyone
reading this to control+f my username in this thread for arguments showing
otherwise.

~~~
ctdonath
I did, and found your arguments wanting. You're conflating local with national
behaviors, and conflating high-value goods/services with low.

Take a low-income area and give everyone $1000/mo for no reason (they're not
trading any local productivity for it), and rent & other basic costs will
immediately rise accordingly. "Move!" you (and I) say - and the limited supply
of inexpensive rural housing (matching UBIers' lack of need for jobs) will
likewise rise accordingly, as the market of renters just vastly increased.
Over time, low-end housing supply may increase, but now you've a market of
homes which rather pointedly do _not_ have jobs nearby - you've just created
communities of people absolutely dependent on UBI.

~~~
billmalarky
>you've just created communities of people absolutely dependent on UBI.

This will be the result of the steady march of automation displacing the human
workforce regardless. Furthermore, the lack of a UBI system in a high
unemployment due to automation scenario would lead to complete collapse of the
market economy.

~~~
ctdonath
We went thru "displacing the human workforce" in the Industrial Revolution.
Don't worry, we'll create more low-skill jobs - just like we did back then.

...unless legislators continue prohibiting people from working if they can't
produce enough value per hour. Minimum wage is "debtor's prison" redux.

There's plenty of low-skill low-value jobs I could hire people to do,
regardless of technological advancement, if only regulations weren't so
oppressive.

~~~
incompatible
Fighting the minimum wage is a political dead end. People won't vote for that,
since they believe people who work a full week should have a decent standard
of living. That's the case in Australia, at least.

~~~
Consultant32452
In practice hardly anyone believes people who work a full week should have a
decent standard of living. If people actually believed that, then no one would
purchase goods manufactured in Mexico, China, etc. Instead, it's more accurate
to say that people don't want the inconvenience of actually seeing poor
people.

~~~
viraptor
I guess this is the usual "hate the game not the player" situation. I wish
there was more local products. I'm willing to make sacrifices and vote with my
wallet to make that happen. (And I do when it's a realistic alternative) But I
can't do that naked - and living in a smallish town, I'd be surprised if I
could buy a full set of clothes here which is not produced in
China/India/Pakistan/Thailand. (Without going a few hours to the nearest city)

Yes, everybody who works full week should earn enough to make a living. The
fact that I'm wearing a t-shirt made in China is mixed up in this in complex
ways, but it doesn't change my position.

~~~
Consultant32452
Again, if people were really interested in this then protectionist economic
policy would be a major topic in every election.

It's worth noting that Barak Obama, in the primaries, campaigned on a platform
of renegotiating NAFTA to not fuck over American workers so hard. Then, after
the primaries, that topic vanished and once elected he tried to pass TPP which
would've been just as bad for American workers as NAFTA. Then of course Trump
campaigned on the same issue, but he's Trump and there's not really anything
more to say about that.

------
neilwilson
The design is flawed from the start. If you have any sort of income guarantee
in a system where

(i) there are others in the same currency area who don't receive the income

(ii) the amount is insufficient to live on

(iii) there are insufficient jobs overall in the economy for all that want
them

(iv) it isn't permanent

then all you actually have is a tax credit system with a different withdrawal
mechanism. [https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-
basi...](https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-basically-
finnished-babadac2d29b)

The pathologies of income schemes that cause all of them to be degraded and
cancelled build up over time as people adjust to the new scheme and work out
who is failing to reciprocate.

Overall basic income is theft from workers and will be seen as such by those
workers. [https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-
basi...](https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-basically-
theft-a95eeedb5aad) They then agitate to have the income removed from those
seen as cheating the system.

What we need are guaranteed jobs at a guaranteed living wage, paid for by the
state working for the public good. Then private businesses finally have to
compete for labour and that maintains the wage share.

People need something to do where they can be of service to others. Not paying
off and left to rot.

~~~
chillwaves
> Overall basic income is theft from workers

Disagree, basic income is equitable distribution of a collective legacy of
increasingly advanced tools and a necessary recognition of limited natural
resources and duty to share a small portion to every human being on the basis
of birth into our society, aka social contract.

~~~
ctdonath
Your abstract 3rd-party justification from a distance fails to note the rest
of that sentence:

"Overall basic income is theft from workers _and will be seen as such by those
workers._ "

When enough of those producing wealth decide that UBI = theft, they aren't
going to just continue producing without pushing back. Personally, if UBI is
implemented, I will "go Galt" and move to a self-sufficient homesteading-style
life, leaving any cash-requiring activities (like paying taxes) to my $UBI/mo
check. That I am a productive person does not mean my productivity will
necessarily be taxable; I grew up in a live-off-the-land family, and would be
happy to return to that lifestyle if you're going to just take a big chunk of
my income just to give to others.

There are enough jobs (yes, there are). Wealth is not durable (you eat a
hamburger, $1 of economic wealth turns to *). Encouraging idleness by funding
it is an unsustainable economic strategy, because so many people find paid
idleness a desirable lifestyle.

~~~
mbrameld
>because so many people find paid idleness a desirable lifestyle.

You're close, and it's an easy mistake to make since it seems intuitive.
However, the reality is that people find THE IDEA of paid idleness desirable.
Small N, but everyone I know who has found themselves in that position has
only remained idle for a very short time. Productivity quickly returns,
although not in the form of trading time for money.

~~~
Tactic
I believe you but that is anecdotal. I know people that not only want to
remain idle if their basic needs are taken care of but currently do, and have
been doing it for decades.

Like most human traits, there is a wide degree of variance. As such there is
no doubt in my mind UBI would allow a greater number of idlers because it
would be more easily available. Just as it would allow more people to trade a
job they don't like for a constructive activity they do.

------
liquidise
One factor that would be lost in a controlled, basic income test is the
inflation effect. Implemented on a national scale, cost inflation of basic
consumer needs is a near certainty. On a controlled test of 1000 people
inflation would be nearly impossible to achieve without localizing the test to
an absurd degree.

I could see this test could serving as a dataset for calculating anticipated
inflation rates on a national scale. If money is sent out via a trackable card
instead of raw cash, you could begin to extrapolate where this basic income
spends would be going, be it consumer products, bills, etc.

~~~
eric_b
Yep, basic consumer staple price inflation is something I never see addressed
with any satisfaction when people are talking about UBI. Housing prices and
rent will assuredly rise proportionally to the basic income amount if this
were to be implemented nationally, so wouldn't pumping all this money in
basically just have the effect of increasing inequality?

~~~
billmalarky
>Housing prices and rent will assuredly rise proportionally to the basic
income amount if this were to be implemented nationally, so wouldn't pumping
all this money in basically just have the effect of increasing inequality?

Unlikely. UBI removes the connection between location and income. As a result
you can move to somewhere incredibly cheap to live since there's no need to be
in an in demand market in order to have a nice job.

Housing is really quite cheap in the US. With Real Estate you pay for the
location not the actual land or building.

Of course people won't necessarily want to move away from their "hip" city,
but UBI is "basic" and if you want to stay in a high demand area you will have
to supplement UBI with work.

As for basic consumables, demand is unlikely to go up for these fundamental
goods because people are _already_ consuming them at their basic required
levels under the current system (toilet paper, eggs, milk, bread, chicken,
beans, rice, birth control, etc).

~~~
bduerst
If people in every location have their income increased, then the housing
prices inflate in every location. Saying, "People can just move" is missing
the point.

It isn't that they can't afford to live where they are now, it's that BI will
be absorbed by price inflation _everywhere_.

~~~
billmalarky
This is a misunderstanding of how both macro inflation occurs (money supply
growing faster than true value of wealth it abstracts), and how price is set
(supply and demand).

UBI does not "create" new money and just give it to everyone (which would
cause inflation). It's a wealth redistribution. That is, many people will see
their income go down under UBI (probably most HN readers for example). The
money supply will represent the same amount of wealth, what changes is who
owns that wealth and as a result who decides how to use that wealth to
consume.

Regarding price changes, price is set by the amount of a good/service demanded
by consumers, and the supply of the good/service created by suppliers. High
discretionary income does cause the demand for certain goods/services to go up
(especially luxuries), but UBI is so basic at $1k per month it won't make much
of a change in the demand curve because the type of goods/services that will
be consumed by someone living on UBI are so fundamental they are already
consuming these goods at the same rate under the current system.

So far as housing is concerned, UBI will pretty much "explode" the supply of
acceptable housing for people living solely on UBI since they get access to
housing in the entire US instead of having it constrained to locations where
they could conceivably "make a living." I'm sure you realize what happens when
supply increases drastically but demand stays somewhat constant (everyone has
to live somewhere and you can only live in one place at once) -- the price of
housing on avg will plummet considerably for UBI'ers.

~~~
ctdonath
Sounds like yet another argument trying to deny the law of supply-and-demand,
like those who quote the laws of thermodynamics and then claim they have a
perpetual motion machine.

Instead of having to work for that first $1000/mo, it just...appears. Yes it
was earned elsewhere, and whoever earned it won't miss it as much as the
recipient will appreciate it, but since the recipient has done nothing for it,
its local value plummets. Instead of _some_ low-income people having $1000/mo
for rent, now _everyone_ has $1000/mo for rent - and basic prices will rise
accordingly.

 _I_ won't notice much change for losing a sub-1% of my income, but those for
whom UBI is really intended can go from really struggling to renting (even
buying) housing. With limited housing supply, suddenly prices will rise.

While I'm a staunch advocate of "move already!" for solving economic problems,
I don't see enough people moving - nor enough housing for them to move to - to
cause "the price of housing on avg will plummet for UBIers".

Imagine the poor section of town. Many/most rent. Suddenly, with no additional
productivity, everyone is getting checks for $1000/mo. You think rent etc
prices aren't going to suddenly skyrocket? I grasp your theory that people can
now move to more affordable locations, not needing to be near jobs - but will
they really? before they can, rent prices just shot up, consuming their
newfound income. Destination rental prices similarly increase - still
relatively attractive, but higher than before since there is more demand and
more money to pay for it.

Yes the supply of acceptable housing for UBIers increases, but those markets
already existed and were already priced for a low-demand market; now you've
"exploded" the demand - prices will rise, matching people who now have
$1000/mo and few expenses.

~~~
mbrameld
Here you claim to earn more than $100k every MONTH, yet in another comment you
claim the amount you are taxed is nearing oppression. It sounds like maybe
you're just saying whatever helps your argument at the time.

------
Jedi72
Basic Income is often proposed in conjunction with cutting basic social
services & welfare payments, thus achieving a net gain for the government.
This seems to make it attractive to both the neoliberals and the
neosocialismés, but I believe this is a terrible mistake that will have the
exact opposite effect to what its supporters intend - there will be _more_
poverty and debt slavery, not less. (Methodology debates aside, I generally
think both sides want people to propser & be happy).

My proof is by example through thought experiment: I'm a grad student who has
a bicycle accident. Without free gov healthcare I now must go into debt to
either the hospital or a lender (medical purchases are just one example of an
essentially non-negotiable expense). Perhaps I already had other debts, but
somehow now my interest payment + living expenses payments are more than my
basic income, otherwise known as the normal life of a grad student in todays
society anyway - in my case BI didn't work. This is just one example of how
easy it is to slide back into poverty with such a system, it could occur
slower and over a few generations but sooner or later poverty is back. We just
pushed the goal posts back a little bit.

Instead I believe we should leave our dealings with money to the marketplace,
but should definitely act as a society to provide a good life for all citizens
by seeing that their basic _needs_ are met. Make free public housing that all
citizens have a right to ask for. Provide basic but nutritious food to the
populace, for free. Encourage free markets and capitalism, but see that the
basic needs of every citizen are met - and perhaps a little power in the
marketplace i.e. money is also a basic need, but its still only one of many.
"If they didn't already exist, people would think public libraries were the
most radically extreme socialism".

For these reasons, the growing popularity of BI is worrysome to me. It's just
neoliberalism made pallitable by a once-in-every-few-generations wealth
transfer.

~~~
laser
"it could occur slower and over a few generations but sooner or later poverty
is back." But, if the UBI is set to a percentage of GDP, then as overall
wealth increases, the wealth of those depending on UBI increase. In the past
few generations, ex. since the 1950's, real GDP has grown 6x [1] while the
population has only doubled [2], meaning the real wealth of our society has
grown three-fold in "a few generations".

[1] [http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-
adjusted/](http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/)

[2]
[https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&...](https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=country:US&hl=en&dl=en)

~~~
jaggederest
I'm not sure that it gives good incentives to have it directly linked to GDP.
I think it would make more sense to have a circuit-breaker type provision
where if GDP increases by more than x% the amount increases by y%, but I doubt
we would want to decrease it immediately when GDP decreases, since that has
the potential to cause a runaway feedback loop.

~~~
laser
That's really smart. I hadn't even considered that and was naively operating
on a default assumption of increasing GDP. Especially during a recession,
adjusting the basic-income downwards with GDP could create a devastating
runaway feedback loop. I think as you wouldn't want the economy to grow faster
than basic income, though, in the circuit-breaker-style implementation as GDP
increases by more than x%, the amount should also increase x%, by default.
When the GDP is assessed, say annually, it should only increase or maintain
the current basic income rate. In the event of an unprecedented long-term
decrease in productivity, the congress should be required to take action to
lower the payouts.

------
roceasta
I like the idea of basic income but I confess that my ideal of a basic income
recipient is someone akin to the 19th-century amateur scientist subsisting on
a private income whilst making original contributions to human knowledge, and,
as a side effect, to society.

Whereas the reality of people receiving free money might be somewhat
different. There's the drip, drip welfare payments of _just_ enough money to
survive without being motivated to find a job. Then there's the fallout,
family break-up and chaos that occur in the wake of a lottery win. Both
morally questionable.

Or perhaps there might be a settling down period of people acting
irresponsibly followed by a recognition that engagement with the problems of
civilisation and survival doesn't end because one has food, shelter and
internet. There are novels to write, structures to design, problems to solve
and of course there's science to be done. Work is more fun than 'fun'. Pick
something worthy of your talents or start the slide into mental disorder and
addiction.

Whatever the truth it almost goes without saying that a study alone cannot
sort these issues out. Perhaps it can help. But in science experiment is
insufficient there has to be theory to go with. (This is a major reason why so
few studies in medicine and psychology are reproducible. I assume in sociology
too.) What makes it more difficult in this case is there are moral components
which can't be assessed empirically, only by conjecture and criticism.

~~~
eduren
>Whereas the reality of people receiving free money might be somewhat
different. There's the drip, drip welfare payments of just enough money to
survive without being motivated to find a job.

That's why I always clarify that an essential piece of Basic Income is that it
is _unconditional_. Whether you're on the bottom rung of society or the top,
employed or unemployed, basic income should be the same amount.

When the choice to get a job changes from _" Well I'd lose my benefits"_ to _"
Well my basic income is no longer enough, I'll work part time"_, then state
welfare no longer becomes as much of a trap. It can finally make strides
towards lifting people out of poverty.

~~~
greedo
How will you work part time if there are no jobs due to robotic automation
(not that I believe that's a significant problem for a century)?

~~~
eduren
I think the parent comment I was replying to was more concerned about the
situation where we have UBI without full automation. In which case there may
be a push for jobs not yet automated to be split into part time positions. If
society really feels like keeping people employed is a moral good in the face
of increasing automation, then there may be pressure to increase workforce
numbers and reduce working hours. Especially possible if UBI can close the gap
and maintain a safety net.

In addition, full, 100% automation doesn't seem likely to me. Service sectors
of the economy may simply keep smaller human staffs in order to keep their
hospitality atmosphere. Not enough to offset job loss in other sectors, but
there are already plenty of businesses today that have a human element that
don't _actually_ need them. It might even look like a luxury business model.
No reason that will go away just because robots can do it better.

------
canjobear
A huge part of what makes basic income appealing is that it is unconditional
and guaranteed. Otherwise it seems like it would create unsafe levels of
government control.

For many people, BI would end up being a large portion of their income, such
that losing it would be catastrophic. Now those people would become beholden
to any government demand made on penalty of revoking BI.

If a government enacts unconditional BI in the year 2020, who's to say they
won't change their minds in 2028 and make it conditional on good behavior?

Are there any mechanisms that could make basic income a true unconditional
guarantee?

~~~
creaghpatr
This is already an issue with Medicaid. 65 million people depend on the
government for free healthcare and cannot afford to lose it.

~~~
trgn
Agree, but no need to only point down.

Social security income is indispensable for the majority of pensioners now. It
used to be only for day laborers who it was understood never had an
opportunity to save. Things have changed for sure.

Similarly, most old people wouldn't be able to afford their healthcare if it
wasn't for Medicare, even it they never even filled out a Medicaid
application.

------
Kevin_S
1k people getting 1k a month for 5 years = $60 million. At the end of the day,
an expensive group. Really impressed by the ambition here, and hope for great
success for the project.

Basic Income research will be vital in the future when it actually becomes a
genuine piece of public policy. Although I have little faith it will be used
effectively by politicians/decision makers.

~~~
mholmes680
impressive, but i feel like this is why we invented computer models and have
technology (maybe) to start returning immediate results.

We're basically saying here that $60M (plus the other group) is better spent
to see what weights to give to models to see how UBI scales-up rather than
spending it to run a full gamut of Test Cases through the models and figuring
out which outputs to motivate people to do with the money.

I mean, why are we spending money to figure out what people will spend the
money on when we can already envision all the possibilities. Or am i wrong,
and no one has modeled this yet??

~~~
rory096
How do you model a population's (or even am individual's) innate preferences
and behavior when their income patterns and ability to spend change? You're
essentially describing the economic calculation problem.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem)

------
nimos
I think peoples choices in a situation like this will be wildly different than
if there was a government provided basic income that was available forever, or
at least had the appearance of being available forever. Having extra money for
a couple years doesn't let you permanently exit the workforce in the same way
a permanent basic income would.

As well I think for established people with kids and other commitments 1000
isn't nearly enough to get by but there is a real danger that for young adults
you give them this option of completely checking out of society if it's
available forever. Rent a cheap house with friends, smoke weed, and play
videogames sounds like a pretty decent option to a lot of 18 year olds. Or
even younger maybe? When can kids legally drop out of high school?

I really think basic income is a bad idea. I don't think we are anywhere near
the point of mass replacement of the entire workforce with robots/ai even in
the developed world. Forcing people who are working to pay into a system that
lets people contribute 0 to society while enjoying a decent life(24k for a
couple/roomates is completely livable in many parts of US especially without a
car) is both unfair and likely to cause significant social strife between
workers/non-workers.

I really think a basic livable wage with the removal of the minimum wage is a
far better solution. Set some minimum livable wage based on 40 hour work week
and have the government top up wages rather than incomes. Obviously there
would have to be some sort of progressive claw back system to encourage people
to find better paying jobs and not just go with the easiest thing available.
Maybe have the government act as an employer of last resort creating some busy
work cleaning streets or repairing roads.

I really think it's important for people to have something to do when they
wake up in the morning and to be contributing members of society. Not only out
of a sense of fairness for the people that are working but I think it is
incredibly unhealthy to not have any responsibilities in life.

~~~
ghaff
>Rent a cheap house with friends, smoke weed, and play videogames sounds like
a pretty decent option to a lot of 18 year olds. Or even younger maybe?

I suspect a lot of people here don't appreciate this because they (and many of
their friends) have a much different mindset. But I can easily see a lot of
that sort of behavior and then, ten or fifteen years in, they decide they want
something more out of life, start a family, whatever. But now they're 30
years-old with no skills, never having worked a real job, minimal education,
etc. Pretty hard to do a reboot at that point.

~~~
mattmanser
I suspect you haven't met many of these type of people.

They spend a couple of years doing that, get bored and get on with enhancing
their lives. The biggest stoner/gamer I knew is now an extremely well paid
city guy. I lived in a dead town and the extended 100 or so people from my age
group that I knew in my teens and twenties, a large amount of whom spent a lot
of time gaming/smoking, now occupy a huge variety of positions in society
across the country (and some the world) in their 30s. I can actually only
think of one person who's still a bit of a waster.

Most people actually want to have a good life and you and the parent are
simply snobs who don't know the sort of people you so condescendingly talk
about.

------
koolba
> We tentatively plan to randomly select 3,000 individuals across two US
> states to participate in the study: 1,000 will receive $1,000 per month for
> up to 5 years, and 2,000 will receive $50 per month and serve as a control
> group for comparison.

So obvious question on many minds, " _Where do I sign up for the free money?_
"

Also, will it be randomly selected or will the selection criteria factor in
cost of living, current financial situation, education, etc?

And where is the potentially $66 million dollars for this coming from?

EDIT: On their FAQ[1] I found the answer to my first question:

>> Can I be a study participant?

> Unfortunately, no. It is important that participants are randomly selected
> into the study.

[1]: [https://basicincome.ycr.org/faqs](https://basicincome.ycr.org/faqs)

~~~
Jemaclus
It says in the quote that you quoted that it will be randomly selected
individuals across two states. ;)

~~~
koolba
I meant the split between $1,000 or $50.

It's not clear (to me at least...) if the randomness applies to choosing the
original 3000 people selected to take part in the study, the bucketizing of
them afterwards into 1000/2000 groups, or both.

------
chris_va
Commenting on the research design.

This research, to me, seems to be ignoring the biggest open question of UBI.
All tests to date have looked pretty good, but have only been done on a micro
level. The fundamental issue one really needs to answer for UBI is the macro
scale effects.

As a society, if we were to redistribute trillions of dollars without
commensurate economic value being directly created, we'd expect to see large
scale inflation.

Money is a complicated subject, but essentially it represents a transfer of a
future scarce resource. For commodities, the cost is essentially the sum of
labor to generate it (either to mine the raw resources, build the factory,
discover the technology, etc).

If no economic resource is being added to the economy, then you are just
devaluing money. That is usually very regressive, and in this case could be
made worse by people slightly reducing their economic labor because of the
extra income stream. I could see this leading to a bad cycle, where any
economic gains due to increasing UBI are later undermined.

Anyway, it would be nice if UBI worked, but I've seen no evidence that it will
in a large system. It would be nice to get confirmation of previous UBI
studies, but this research proposal is likely to just generate the same data,
without addressing any of the open fundamental issues.

------
dsp1234
Just a bit of quick math[0]:

~323,000,000 total US population

77.2% over the age of 18

~250,000,000 total over the age of 18

$12,000 per year per adult = $3,000,000,000,000 per year

[0] -
[https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216)

~~~
guaka
Trillions. That's what's currently going around in quantitative easing. That's
why many are calling for QE for the people. Instead of giving money to
financial institutions, give it directly to the people.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing)

~~~
chris_va
There is a big difference between loaning $1T once, and getting paid back,
versus giving it away every year.

~~~
zanny
You loan 1T to the poor one year and get paid back 1T from the rich the next
from all those poor spending money on goods the rich sell.

UBI isn't like defense spending. It isn't a black hole you put tax dollars
down and get nothing out. It means tremendous goods demand for the necessities
of life that is extremely stable and reliable for businesses to profit off.

~~~
chris_va
No offense, but defense spending is exactly the same as what you describe.
It's money that goes to hundreds of thousands of workers that spend it in the
economy.

Unlike (some) defense spending, UBI doesn't intrinsically create some economic
value. Increased stability would indirectly create economic value, but it
needs to be more than the face value of the UBI check for it to not lead to
gross inflation.

------
imh
Here's a more in depth version of the proposal
[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599c23b2e6f2e1aeb8d35...](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599c23b2e6f2e1aeb8d35ec6/t/59c3188c4c326da3497c355f/1505958039366/YCR-
Basic-Income-Proposal.pdf)

It answers many of the questions people are asking here.

------
adangert
You know this might be speculative, but I feel like a basic income applied to
a national allows that population to act more like an ant hive. In the sense
that only 3% of the population is actually doing the real hard work, but this
is a healthy paradigm, and is much better than forcing individuals who
shouldn't be doing the work they currently are to pursue things they actually
care about, such as taking care of loved ones, or some creative pursuit. Jobs
such as these don't pay much, but are equally valuable to society.

~~~
JOnAgain
A lot more video games will be played

~~~
zanny
Maybe for a year. Then people will want meaning in their lives and would seek
meaningful productive things to do that they _want_ to do.

The reason people right now love gaming so much and often to an unhealthy
degree is because its an escape from a life they don't like living but have no
choice in because they are chained to a job to survive.

~~~
aaron-lebo
Yeah, for a lot of people living in Azeroth is still going to be more fun than
living off 12k a year. Entertainment is made to be addictive, none of those
dynamics you are talking about are going to change.

------
jgalt212
It blows my mind that the allegedly smart SV elite think Guaranteed Basic
Income will solve more problems than it creates.

But maybe there much smarter than I, and they secretly want to create these
problems so they can capitalize on them.

Or maybe, they want to sap the proletariat of their drive so that the elite
can remain the elite forever.

~~~
x2f10
I wonder the same.

My tin-foil theory: The poor are no longer able to purchase consumer goods as
their entire income goes to their basic needs. With the middle class being
pushed to the poor class, this will have devastating consequences for our
consumerist-based economy. Thus, BI is nothing more than recession prevention.

Of course, that's probably not the case.

------
influx
At what point does the government controlling your income start to impede
personal freedom?

Wouldn't any politician campaigning to increase the basic income be almost
automatically elected?

~~~
NickLamp
Is everyone currently clamoring to elect politicians that want to increase
welfare and other "Great Society" programs?

~~~
chimeracoder
> Is everyone currently clamoring to elect politicians that want to increase
> welfare and other "Great Society" programs?

People aren't clamoring to increase welfare because the people whom it's
perceived to benefit aren't the ones who actually have the largest voting
power.

People absolutely do reward politicians for securing funding for their
constituents, usually in the form of earmarks, targeted tax breaks (e.g.
disaster relief, geographically targeted bailouts), and stipends. In fact,
it's one of the strongest predictors of support for politicians representing
smaller districts.

Only at the national level (ie, when running for president) does it become
problematic to be perceived as having spent Congressional funds on your own
district, because the new constituency includes people who had their money
"taken away" in order to provide those earmarks.

~~~
NickLamp
I don't think richer people would think that the government giving $1000 a
month to everyone would see that as benefitting themselves, there's your
opposition to increasing BI or having it at all. And I don't disagree with
those last two points.

~~~
chimeracoder
> I don't think richer people would think that the government giving $1000 a
> month to everyone would see that as benefitting themselves, there's your
> opposition to increasing BI or having it at all.

Huh? No, the point isn't what the richest people would think - they have an
incentive to oppose either welfare or cash handouts. The point is that
currently, welfare only targets the people with the lowest voting power,
because they're both a very small bloc and also a bloc that doesn't vote very
consistently in the first place. So there isn't a huge political incentive to
increasing _welfare_.

As soon as you make that a handout that targets everyone (or appears to target
everyone), you've suddenly put the largest voting bloc - those who are neither
very wealthy nor on welfare - in a position where they _will_ start to clamor
to increase it more and more, because they'll see that as money flowing
towards themselves.

~~~
NickLamp
I don't think I said richest...

Also I don't think it's hard to see how this thought would come about (not
saying I'm advocating it). But there are plenty of ideas that would help
society in general (lower college tuition) that many Americans are against
whether rationally or irrationally.

If you fail to see how the American public would have a negative reaction to
some kind of redistribution of wealth I think you should think about the
average American's reaction to the idea of a socialist politician.

~~~
chimeracoder
> If you fail to see how the American public would have a negative reaction to
> some kind of redistribution of wealth I think you should think about the
> average American's reaction to the idea of a socialist politician.

That's not it - I'm not saying that the American public wouldn't have a
negative reaction to "redistribution of wealth". I'm saying that the American
public has a negative reaction to "redistribution of wealth" when _they don 't
think it benefits them_. In other words, they're generally fine with wealth
being redistributed from other people _to_ them, which is most evidenced by
people of all income levels usually (though not always) being on board with
federal money coming in to their district. This generally takes the form of
federally-funded infrastructure projects or targeted subsidies.

I'm using that to explain why people in between welfare-level poverty and
comfortable wealth would have a different reaction to a stipend that (they
think) is coming out of other people's tax dollars than they would to current
welfare programs (which [as they perceive] don't benefit them).

------
craigcannon
hey! elizabeth rhodes, the basic income research director at ycr, is keeping
an eye on this thread and will reply to questions if you have them.

~~~
taw321
this is not a question. i know there are tons of those that say no to basic
income (just glance the comments here), yet if i was eligible (different
country) i would have applied right away and quit my job. i have a few side
projects and some of them just weeks and months away from release, i could
return the money with interest if things go as planned (maybe a contract).
banks are aggressive, i can not ask my family, kickstarter and similar are too
visible, ventures are so noisy and my goals and the respect for the people in
general not aligned with them. this would be ideal because it is quite
relaxed. here you go, an ideal setup!

------
cabalamat
> 1,000 will receive $1,000 per month for up to 5 years

What does this mean? Is it going to be 5 years or not? Will different
participants get it for a different amount of time? Will they know when it is
going to stop?

~~~
dsp1234
From the linked proposal:

"We propose two treatment arms, one of which will receive the basic income
payments for 3 years while the other receives a 5-year guarantee."[0]

[0] -
[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599c23b2e6f2e1aeb8d35...](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599c23b2e6f2e1aeb8d35ec6/t/59c3188c4c326da3497c355f/1505958039366/YCR-
Basic-Income-Proposal.pdf)

------
indescions_2017
My bias is that inherited wealth passed down down through the traditional
family structure remains the greatest guarantor of multi-generational
financial prosperity and stability. Even a single member of your immediate
extended family attaining professional status as Doctor or Lawyer results in a
higher probability of entry to the middle class for the entire family than any
other indicator.

The big question proponents of Universal Basic Income must answer is: does
direct stimulus of aggregate demand result in real growth? Is risk de-
incentivized when a labor market participant is not required to work for
marginal increases in "happiness"?

Taking our current central bankers experiments with quantitative easing (and
now, perhaps, quantitative tightening) as a proxy for injecting liquidity into
the system I think there is at least one evident result: bubbles forming in
even the unlikeliest of places.

In any case, full support for YC's experiment and can't wait to see the data
and results. Best of Luck and thanks for your vision and efforts!

------
benstrumental
> First, we just wrapped up a one-year feasibility study in Oakland

Are the results of this feasibility study publicly available?

~~~
jcmoscon
Yes, you can go and read about communism and how 100s of millions died while
it was being implemented

~~~
katastic
That gave me a serious chuckle. It was so unexpected. Thank you.

------
jpao79
I think a better direction would be if YC Research could figure out a process
to growth hack a new high density city from scratch instead of everyone
crowding into physically constrained existing city. Make YC entry conditional
on relocating to somewhere besides Silicon Valley/San Francisco. Maybe
somewhere in California (Redding, Modesto) so you have the same
rules/regulation as in California but with minimal earthquake risk, plenty of
land and existing water resource Maybe even do something like the Amazon
second headquarters RFP.

Sort of like what PG describes here:
[http://www.paulgraham.com/pgh.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/pgh.html)

------
sharemywin
My guess on how it will turn out:

1\. People given Basic income and minimal addictions will fair best 2\. People
without basic income and minimal addictions will fair second best 2\. People
without basic income and addictions will fair third best(drugs, major alcohol,
internet/game)

4\. People given basic income and addictions will fair worst(drugs, major
alcohol, internet/game)

I'm probably completely wrong. 3 and 4 could be switched in which case Basic
income would be always better.

My general premise is giving people with a strong addiction money without some
kind of life structure is a bad idea.

Please don't down vote me if you disagree. Please just comment on how you
disagree.

~~~
kolbe
Agreement/disagreement are not the only reasons for the voting system.
Relevance is important, too.

~~~
sharemywin
I agree that my opinion/guesses are irrelevant. But, it started a conversation
that could become relevant.

\- or devolve into BS you never know.

------
Wildgoose
Start small. Give very adult citizen the same fixed amount. Deduct that amount
from existing welfare payments.

We now have a guaranteed universal Citizens's "Basic" Income, albeit at a very
low level, paid for by taxpayers via the normal progressive tax system and
which primarily helps the working poor.

Iron out all the inevitable implementation problems.

Then raise the level to the minimum level for welfare payments and remove a
swathe of bureaucracy.

Observe the results while gaining a sensible Welfare System based upon "From
each according to their ability, To each equally, with neither favour nor
discrimination".

Adjust as necessary.

------
kolbe
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't UBI operate on the premise that it's
replacing many of the existing social programs? For example, unconditional
money rather than food/housing assistance. If the participants of the study
also get access to these things, doesn't that severely limit the usefulness of
this study?

Also, $1k/mo is pretty small. Are you just hoping to observe some behavioral
changes at the margin with which to extrapolate?

~~~
ja30278
There seems to be a common bait-and-switch tactic performed by proponents of
UBI, in which they mention UBI as a replacement for social programs when
talking about affordability, but back away from that assertion when questioned
about how to handle (for example) recipients that spend all of their UBI on
drugs instead of food.

~~~
deegles
I see that as a societal symptom instead of a personal failure. I would rather
a person spend their time playing videogames* instead of being stuck working
dead-end jobs until the day they die.

*Drugs are a different issue, that should be treated as a health problem and dealt with accordingly.

------
adenadel
I hope many of the study participants are living in a low COL area. If the
$1000 per month covers most if not all of your expenses it gives someone a
much greater opportunity to pursue something the can really improve their life
rather than just a nice boon on top of their current income. Of course, this
is more of an "I hope this improves peoples' lives" rather than considering
how best to design the experiment.

------
jasonjei
Robot tax. Fund basic income on the basis whereby every job that is replaced
by automation, a tax must be paid by a company with more than 1000 employees.

------
ph0rque
Curious as to how the control group monthly amount ($50) was decided upon. Was
it basically an incentive for those selected to participate?

~~~
jessriedel
I would speculate yes. (1) You want subjects in the control group to be
incentivized to maintain contact with the researchers throughout the study and
be willing to spend time answering their questions. (2) Whenever feasible, you
want all subjects in a research study to be better off than not participating
in the study. (3) It also controls for some minor confounding effects like
"gets in the habit of going to the bank monthly and cashing a check".

------
olleromam91
I like to do this though experiment sometimes.

Let's assume some sort of Basic Income is enacted. A standard livable amount
for all adults, that will scale with inflation, and even with number of
dependents.

Some people will still work. Will still pursue hard working jobs that
contribute to society, that push our capabilities as a species forward, and
_add value_ (important). But think about most of the world and people that you
know...I'd imagine that on average, people would elect to not choose to - for
lack of a better term - "work hard" to boost their income if their basic needs
are covered. Some folks would just love to let others take the wheel, and
enjoy their netflix and soylent in peace. This needs proof of course, but I
believe that's an assumption we can make for sake of discussion.

Now...we all know that automation is coming. Already we see many of the tasks
that humans depend on for survival and prosperity being done faster and more
efficiently with artificial intelligence and robotics. Things like harvesting
natural resources, agriculture, production of goods, and even building
infrastructures. The responsibility of these tasks is shifting away from the
people, and into the hands (clamps?) of specialized machines.

So, assuming 1) we have individuals who are having their needs provided for,
but not making a measurable contribution to the survival of the species/system
and 2) we are trending toward automation and hyper optimization for all the
processes that we depend on for survival...when do AI and/or algorithms start
to find that certain people are not worth being provided for? Who manages
these systems? Someone that we elect? An artificial entity?

I'd honestly love to hear others thoughts on this. I know I would rather fight
and claw for survival than pray to someone that they don't choose me to shoot
off into space.

~~~
zanny
It happens a lot where people make this jump from autonomous machines to
sentient machines. It isn't a small gap. Going from domain learning and
genetic algorithms to develop solutions for a hardcoded task to sapience is a
_huge_ leap.

It won't be accidental, or at least come out of nowhere. We _should_ be able
to see it coming even if it will come out of evolving algorithms. There will
absolutely be intent in constructing intelligent artificial life.

------
peterburkimsher
A few questions:

Will there be travel restrictions? (if someone is receiving this money, do
they have to stay in the same city/country, or can they move?)

What age ranges will be included in the study? [I found the answer in the
report: it's 21 to 40]

Is there a control group that won't be interviewed regularly? I'm more
motivated when my boss talks to me. Requiring people to meticulously manage
their time will already bring a productivity boost.

What about controlling for the end date? My contracts last for 1 year at a
time. If I suddenly knew I'd have a steady income for 5 years, that would be a
huge relief, and I'd change my lifestyle accordingly and settle down (e.g. be
able to plan to start a family). That feeling is independent of the amount of
money, it's just the stability.

My first feeling is that living with basic income will be similar to
retirement. (and there's a lot more data about what retired people spend their
time doing).

------
roymurdock
Really awesome to see this coming together. 2 q's - how was the $1,000 per
month figure calculated, and will you be deploying in a small, low-income,
isolated community where local inflation might occur, a large metropolitan
community, distributed randomly across the 2 states? Interesting problems to
consider in this study design!

~~~
roymurdock
Found the answer to my sampling question: "As described above, we will select
areas for the study by taking a stratified random sample of Census tracts in
large regions within the two states where median household income does not
exceed the area median income. After sampling tracts, we will randomly select
addresses within tracts from USPS DSF (a sampling frame of all addresses). We
will screen selected addresses for eligibility, ultimately enrolling no more
than one percent of individuals within a Census tract. We may use available
administrative data eliminate as many ineligible households from the sampling
frame as possible to cut down on recruitment and enrollment costs, but we are
examining the reliability of this data during the pilot. We are contracting
with a survey research firm with extensive experience fielding national
studies to assist with sampling, manage recruitment, and conduct in- person
enrollment and baseline surveys."

To my thinking it would have been interesting to study the possible inflation
effects (treat the isolated community as representative for the whole country)
but I'm sure there is a good reason/past research for structuring the sample
this way.

------
nnfy
The idea that UBI will wipe away the ignorance and cultural dogma that keeps
poor people poor is absurd.

How many lottery winners hold on to their winnings?

Let's be realistic. If you give the uneducated poor free money, the only thing
that will change is how much money they have to spend on junk food and dated
electriconics.

UBI as a policy in a place like the U.S. is hopelessly niave. Our culture of
poverty if the typical culture of ignorant poverty. I speak as someone who
lived among the poor-hell, in high school I dated two women from the same
trailer park, poverty in the U.S. is about getting mine, and often times about
getting one over the man.

These aren't temporarily downtrodden future intellectuals. These are people
who haven't understood education or work for generations. But, on the other
hand, who are we to claim our culture is superior?

~~~
gnaritas
> The idea that UBI will wipe away the ignorance and cultural dogma that keeps
> poor people poor is absurd.

No one is saying that.

> How many lottery winners hold on to their winnings?

Not relevant.

> Let's be realistic. If you give the uneducated poor free money, the only
> thing that will change is how much money they have to spend on junk food and
> dated electriconics.

That's the point. UBI isn't welfare, it's not meant to rehabilitate people and
make them into workers. If most people who get UBI choose to live off it and
not work, and remain poor, fucking great, that's the whole point of the
program, to reduce the working population down to those who actually want to
work as there aren't going to be enough jobs for everyone and many people
would choose not to work if they could.

You just really do not understand what UBI is about, not at all.

------
lancewiggs
Given the skew of poverty in the USA to black and latin populations you might
want to consider hiring several full time people on to the team and leadership
who can bring the understanding that can only come from being part of those
communities. Otherwise this can be attacked as being dominated by rich white
people. While the intent is clear the execution needs to match the targeted
end users.

You may also want to consider the efffect of health care. In other UBI
environments free healthcare is a given. In this experiment healthcare costs
can easily cripple the impact of the regular income. Control for that by
providing health care insurance, or make it two experiments by doing some with
and some without. If that doesn’t work maybe consider doing this experiment in
another country.

------
cshenton
I'm somewhat doubtful of the design as it's explained in this blogpost, seems
like there will be lots of treatment externalities. I'd really recommend
anyone who's interested read
[http://cega.berkeley.edu/assets/cega_research_projects/1/Ide...](http://cega.berkeley.edu/assets/cega_research_projects/1/Identifying-
Impacts-on-Education-and-Health-in-the-Presence-of-Treatment-
Externalities.pdf) for an explanation of why a totally randomised control
trial is the wrong choice for things like this.

------
demircancelebi
Wow. Looks like they'll spend a lot of money for this research. Congrats to
everyone involved!

I thought basic income was about a time where AI would take most of the jobs,
and everything would be far cheaper thanks to automation. I cannot understand
how it'll help you not work in the current world.

Because working part-time might not be an option for many, even if they are
ready to forgo the money. We also have not built that automated world yet, so
although $1000/m certainly helps, it is still not enough to pay for a
comfortable life in the US.

Maybe someone more informed on the subject can enlighten me.

~~~
goodcanadian
Because it is not meant to "help you not work." It is meant to ensure a basic
minimum whether you work or not. It is also not meant to "pay for a
comfortable life." It is meant to prevent you from starving.

For the sake of argument, however, as you say, going part time is not an
option for many people. For the lowest paid jobs, on the other hand, going
full time is often not an option. The jobs at the bottom tend to be part time
with no benefits and no guaranteed hours. These are the people who will be
most benefited by a basic income. If they are additionally stuck in a hostile
work environment, the basic income may give them enough cushion to quit the
job rather than hanging on just so they don't starve. It may also give them
enough money to take time off work and go to school in order to earn a
slightly better income. And, if they are laid off through no fault of their
own, it may allow them to eat until they can find another job.

------
jaredchung
The Basic Income research project in Finland is certainly relevant here. A
podcast episode: [http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-finnish-
experiment...](http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-finnish-experiment/)
A recent article: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/opinion/finland-
universal...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/opinion/finland-universal-
basic-income.html)

------
ctdonath
In real UBI implementation, is it considered taxable income?

Core to UBI is that since _everyone_ gets UBI, and since I pay substantial
taxes, I'd pay a minimum of $UBI in taxes and simply get it back as a UBI
check for a net total of $0.

BUT... If that's taxable income, I have to pay (say) a cumulative 33% on that
additional "income". Instead of a net $0, I have to pay something like $4000
in additional taxes. WTF?

------
awjr
Many countries already have a form of age restricted UBI.

The state pension.

I know many pensioners in the UK that work as the state pension does not
provide 'enough'.

~~~
hycaria
Enough for what ? Eating ? Maintaining a family house that is not residence of
your children anymore ? Having a car ? Covering additional health expenses ?

------
benstrumental
99pi recently released a podcast on the basic income research being done by
the Finnish government & YCombinator:

[http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-finnish-
experiment...](http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-finnish-experiment/)

------
grondilu
> We tentatively plan to randomly select 3,000 individuals across two US
> states to participate in the study: 1,000 will receive $1,000 per month for
> up to 5 years, and 2,000 will receive $50 per month and serve as a control
> group for comparison.

That's 66 million dollars, if you're wondering.

------
padobson
Will this research enable conclusions about the macroeconomic effects of UBI?
It seems like it'd be difficult to predict how national and international
markets will react to an entire country suddenly receiving a UBI based on a
study of only a few thousand people.

------
superlopuh
How will the 1000 a month be treated in a fiscal sense? I have close to no
knowledge about the US tax system, but I would guess it has some impact.

Also, will be interesting to see the difference in results from this study to
ones done in countries where healthcare is free or subsidised.

~~~
wavefunction
The effective tax rate an individual would face depends on how much income an
individual derives from other sources during this time in addition to the
basic income, along with their household demographics (number of children,
marriage situation).

By itself with no other income sources the individual would fall below the US
federal poverty level[0] by $60 and would likely qualify for some Earned
Income Credits[1] as well as subsidized health care.

Adding children or a spouse (especially a working one) will crank the tax rate
up or down.

Then there is an entire universe of tax complexity having to do with credits
and penalties an individual or family might face.

[0][https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines](https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-
guidelines)

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

------
Keyframe
One interesting thought, maybe, would be, as robotics/automation takes over
and grows, is to introduce special automation tax from which BI could be
partially (or fully?) funded? Maybe ti could alleviate some of the inflation
concerns.

------
grondilu
Couldn't they research and study people who already don't work for a living? I
mean those who already own capital and don't expect the government to steal
some for them?

That would sure be cheaper.

------
jumpkickhit
Really like the idea of basic income. However, after living in the real world
as long as I have, I know all it would do is raise rent by exactly that
amount, everywhere.

------
cpacia
I'm curious why another study is needed. Is it because the results of past
studies didn't make a strong case for the UBI?

------
legohead
5 years is an eternity in today's age, progression-wise. Hopefully results
will be published as the trial progresses.

------
maxerickson
So the first steps to a basic income are capital controls and a VAT, right?

I wonder how long it will be until USA is ready for that stuff.

~~~
corford
Don't most states in the US already have sales tax (which is effectively VAT
by another name)?

------
watertom
UBI is great, now everyone will be able to pay for healthcare!

------
manav
Where are the results of the feasibility study in Oakland?

------
hxta98596
Congrats to the ycr team on the progress and accomplishments to date.

I must say after reading through to the full proposal, I was a little
disappointed it doesn't include much that stood out as different or
"disruptive" or "new" as I would have hoped given that it has grown out of YC.
YCR has definitely done some cool things and is moving very quickly and again
congrats on the successes so far.

Maybe other things are going on behind the scenes that were not included in
the proposal and are not on the website? I couldn't help but get the
impression while reading the proposal that this sounds like a proposal that
any ol' well-funded private foundation could have come up with, and
unfortunately I fear the study will run into the same problems those other
private foundation type studies run into while in progress and once completed.
What a waste and shame if that happens.

I fully understand there are limitations to these studies, and rules to play
by, and there are many working components as these studies grow bigger in
scale and touch more people and must interact more with the government and
press then research teams kind of need to become more risk averse and CYA a
lot more. But couldn't there be a secondary smaller research studies going
that actually try new and interesting UBI research and try to answer some of
the harder questions UBI faces as well as look harder at some of the multi-
sigma rare events (pros and cons) of UBI that could happen.

Also I want to commend YCR for what looks to be a legit "people first"
research approach. I wish more policy type researchers follow your lead and
think about how people might be affected or not affected as a result of policy
instead of just making assumptions based on big macro numbers changing and
then trying to change those numbers.

Again no offense, but this study feels like similar studies: Get some smart
brand name Phd's, spend a lot of money and spend a lot of time to get data
needed to calculate some "results" numbers to support a policy idea or two.
Great, these "results" will end up in some random think tank type policy
articles and papers that government representatives have thrown their way
every day by various lobbying and advocacy groups. These results will probably
make a few good buzzworthy headlines on various news and "pseudo" news sites
from NYtimes down to buzzfeed. Great.

Headline: "A new large UBI study just showed xyz positives happen under UBI
but there's a couple exceptions...".

This is a lot of money and time to run a study you know no matter how
successful it is what UBI naysayers will still have tons of ammunition to
complain why policy shouldn't be changed yet or at least not dramatically.
What then? Another 5 year study?

Cool story bro. Good studies that lead to good policies do 2 things: 1. They
show evidence of doing the good thing they are suppose to do. 2. They shutdown
most or all of the things the other side is using to prevent the policy from
passing. This study is not doing enough of either, especially #2.

Are you guys studying things like: The psychology of people once UBI is more
common and less stigmatized not just the psychology of getting unconditional
money? How to pay for it? Seriously here. What will the uptake rate be? Will
the first years pull down tax payers into UBI before re-adjusting and they
return to work. What are you really shooting for here? 20% 33% 50% feeding
back into the payer loop? What tactics might groups or business use to reverse
or combat the psychology on UBI, what will be used to take advantage of people
who suddenly have money and no restrictions on it? Hello more MLM schemes?
Look at Norway news this week and their SWF, don't make that mistake.

I realize you have aggregation problems and methodological individualism stuff
and what not. But start a moonshots division in YCR please. Good luck.

------
throwaway0255
Research like this is dangerous.

> We tentatively plan to randomly select 3,000 individuals across two US
> states to participate in the study: 1,000 will receive $1,000 per month for
> up to 5 years, and 2,000 will receive $50 per month and serve as a control
> group for comparison.

Is this a joke? This may as well read: "We'd like to research the effects of
Universal Basic Income. We tentatively plan to select 300 individuals from
opposite sides of a freeway: 100 will receive a free roast beef sandwich, and
200 will receive a pack of airline peanuts and serve as a control group for
comparison."

UBI costs 1- to 2-million dollars PER HEAD to simulate. You can't cut corners
on this and still expect to get relevant data. Not only are you not getting
the data you want on how UBI would affect human behavior on the scale of a
lifetime, you're also totally ignoring the greater sociological impact and
resulting economic impact.

The 5-year span is too short to impact human behavior, the 1000-person
headcount is too small to observe any greater sociological or economic impact,
and the source of the funding (willing voluntary participants interested in
UBI) means we're getting zero data on how the public would feel about being
forced to fund this.

This research addresses literally none of the strongest arguments against UBI.

Maybe this is cynical, but I think they might already know all of this.
They're just doing it anyway because they know a horn offering 5 years of free
money will get their blog a lot of attention, and they know the results of
this "research" will be biased toward the pro-UBI result they already want.

I guess we can all look forward to decades of liberal arts majors citing the
outcome of this research as if it means anything. It's really unfortunate too,
because these are the issues that really matter.

People spend all their energy arguing about race and sex and abortion and gay
marriage and cops and who gets to use which bathroom, but nothing impacts
human prosperity (and suffering and death and peace and war) the way
macroeconomics can. That's when policy gets real and impacts people on a scale
with a lot of zeroes on the end, and when enough people are misinformed about
something like this, it has the potential to take humanity down a very dark
path.

