Hacker News Reader

Comment by Swizec | Hacker News Reader

> A pilot where the participants know or suspect that the money will soon stop flowing won't capture the real-world effect of this decades-long experiment that we call pensions.

There is a big difference in getting a guaranteed income in your 20’s vs your 60’s.

In your 20’s it unlocks taking big risks and swing for the fences. YC bets in this, for example. What can ambitious kids do when they don’t need to worry about money?

But when you’ve been grinding for 40 years … yeah for sure most people stop working.

View on HN

> But when you’ve been grinding for 40 years … yeah for sure most people stop working.

I’d like to emphasize “grinding” here. For many it’s a grind in the truest sense, involving decades of backbreaking physical work. For others it’s immense stress to keep a roof over their family’s head no matter what. By the time retirement rolls around practically everybody has been burned out to some degree but had to power through regardless simply because quitting wasn’t an option.

Yeah, under conditions like that, people are indeed going to stop working the very second they’re no longer required to in order to survive. Things like UBI, 4-day work weeks, remote work, and fair compensation would all improve that situation measurably.

I think Universal Healthcare does this too. I just turned 40 and I would be WAY more interested in jumping jobs if it existed. Instead I keep on because my wife is going back to school and such, so everything relies on me.

Boom!

> Instead I keep on because my wife is going back to school and such, so everything relies on me.

This has been so apparent to me over the last 20 years. I've seen so many people who wanted to switch jobs - perhaps a move to other parts of the country for a new job - but are very tied to employer-provided insurance. People with family members with varying health issues often feel especially 'stuck' to particular jobs because of the 'good' insurance, perhaps tied to specific regional hospitals with specific networks of doctors and specialists. I've heard this from multiple colleagues over the years and it's so disheartening. We've got so much unlocked human potential, and we get tied to specific areas because of arbitrary self-imposed constraints. Self-imposed I mean on ourselves as a whole, not individually-imposed.

So so so disheartening...

This is by design. The USA pairing healthcare to your job was on purpose.

Technically it was because businesses were banned from raising wages during WW2 but benefits were exempt.

War bonds, rationing and other measures long since abandoned were introduced then too. How weird would it be if everyone were still limited to 8oz of sugar per month in 2025 due to the exigencies of WW2? It's no less weird when it comes to healthcare being linked to remuneration. Heck, there are better free market approaches not adopted by the US, since its usually horny for that sort of thing, right up until it's pro-labor I guess.

Healthcare wouldn't be nearly as much of the issue it is if it weren't for healthcare administration and the cap on MDs. The private vs public debate becomes way less interesting when the cost drops 90%. Getting rid of that problem should really be everyone's focus.

Just anecdata.

I stopped when I was 55 (didn't have a choice, actually). Fortunately, I had saved wisely, and lived frugally, so I was able to stop working (which was good, because no one wanted me, anyway).

I actually get more done, every day (like, seven days a week), than I did when getting paid.

ToMAYto, ToMAHto...

> In your 20’s it unlocks taking big risks and swing for the fences. YC bets in this, for example. What can ambitious kids do when they don’t need to worry about money?

That might be true for maybe 5-10% of 20-somethings. The rest will blow it.

Do you have data to back this up?

> That might be true for maybe 5-10% of 20-somethings. The rest will blow it.

It feels like everyone that has an anti-UBI position has access to a lot of research that no one else can see - or they're just unwilling to read or accept the results of every study / bit of research actually done on the topic.

There isn't research done on UBI.

Either it is never universal, and / or participants know that it isn't going to last long (limited duration study) so they have different motivations than someone who will actually receive UBI.

Every study basically has the same (obvious and not useful) conclusion: people like getting money. Any conclusion beyond that (specific to UBI) isn't supported.

I know a universal one.

One is Alaska’s Permanent Fund. Look at their gini index among all 50 states since the fund launched.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pop4.398

And the conclusions are similar. Better health. Lower inequality

The other is Manitoba’s MINCOME experiment, they randomly selected people — it was doing very well but somehow the powers that be pulled the plug: https://humanrights.ca/story/manitobas-mincome-experiment

Alaska's Permanent Fund dividend paid $1,702 last year (for the whole year, not monthly). How is that small amount changing people's lives?

It certainly qualifies for a rather interesting definition of "basic"

Every person’s story is different. People are resourceful.

If $150 a month can make people’s lives better, in a state that doen’t issue its own currency, imagine what phasing in a UBI for everyone in USA can do, gradually and increasing. And that’s the point.

USA will have to print money anyway to service their sovereign debt. So may as well give it out as a UBI over 40 years first, then tax it and pay the treasury holders. Think about it!

I think the issue is that it'd be really hard to test experimentally. Basically you'd have to give a select group of people UBI for life and do a 40+ year long longitudinal study.

I haven’t actually seen any arguments against UBI. Lots of gut feelings offered as truisms though.

I think you meant to say "evidence against UBI." There's plenty of arguments, which, as you note, are mostly gut feelings.

So just so I'm clear: because some people, somewhere, will take UBI and blow it on college beer parties, which definitely won't happen otherwise, but because of that, every person who doesn't grow up at least semi-privileged gets the on-ramp directly onto the lifetime debt treadmill?

they're just parroting the "welfare queen" myth.

You are underestimating the human desire to be useful.

>In your 20’s it unlocks taking big risks and swing for the fences.

In your 20s it might also unlock travel and adventure.

The current proposals and tests are not about that kind of money. It is in the word 'basic': you can buy food and and a small room, not 'travel and adventure'.

If you can buy food and a small room, you can buy food and petrol for your van. If you already own a bike, a biking holiday can now be your permanent lifestyle.

Sure, those people exist, that is fine. Some people do that now and far beyond their 20s: just hitch/bike/van around and do the odd job for a few days and live off that the rest of the time. There are communities where I live who allow anyone to come in and clean and cook together so you can stay and eat for $0. That is without basic income so it will happen with too. Thats a tiny minority. Most will get bored, loney, fed up etc if they even 'dare' to start such a life.

Ok, but thats "travel and adventure". Travel and adventure are demonstrably available to people who arent rich.

"Tiny Minority" until you no longer need a job to maintain the lifestyle. A non zero amount of people will go from not traveling, to traveling.

This is neither a criticism nor endorsement of UBI. Its just an observation.

Also, how is it bad to have such people? These are the people who go on to write interesting books or bring a different perspective to society than the one in which everyone lives the same life.

Indeed. No problem.

> Some of them can't even figure out how to spend SNAP, because there's no refrigator or pantry in the stairwell they sleep in! I had a friend who insisted on spending 100% SNAP on 100% fresh beef. He literally wouldn't eat anything else. Jeez.

Isn't this making the argument in favor of a UBI? The theory behind SNAP is they have to buy food instead of stupid things, but then they just buy stupid food.

Meanwhile someone who is actually having a hard time gets put in a bind because they'd otherwise be willing to eat day old bagels and whatever's on the menu at the soup kitchen in order to save up for what they really need, which is the deposit for an apartment. But you can't use SNAP for that and then the government is paying the same money for worse results.

Or prices will just rise.

Not UBI but this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_GLfxaYTYI) shows (claims) rent always rises to suck up available money. Why? Not because landlords are evil, no, because once people have more money many of them want a nicer place. There are a limited number of nicer places so the prices rise since all these new people with a little more money bid up what they're willing to pay.

The same will be true of UBI and anything you think it enables. There are limited number of planes, boats, hotels, hostels so the moment everyone can do it is the moment there's more demand than supply and prices will go up.

The larger point is that it's not about if you get UBI. It's about if everyone gets UBI

>> There is a big difference in getting a guaranteed income in your 20’s vs your 60’s.

No, it's the difference between getting a pension (a guaranteed income for the rest of your life) and a second job's salary without working it. Basically the "basic income" experiments create Reddit r/overemployed participants without even having to work the additional job.

> In your 20’s it unlocks taking big risks and swing for the fences.

I think it is really common for retiree risk takers to swing for the fences in their 60's.

Their time is freed up and often lump sums become available: retirees often feel they need to make money to live well in retirement. I'm sure you can think of cliched coffee shop entrepreneurs, restaurant owners, franchise purchasers and investment property purchasers.

The reason it's such a well known cliche is because of how often they get burnt (due to poor understanding of risks) and many lose their homes.

I really notice it because I'm nearer retirement than 20 (they're not my peers but my acquaintances span a wide range of age and money demographics).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com