Hacker News Reader

Comment by vog | Hacker News Reader

Can this really work when applied just partially? This experiment is about ~250 people with basic income in a large city. (The text mentions 300 people, but some of them form a control group that doesn't receive basic income.)

So if any of these selected people will try to find a job, they will probably voluntarily "lose" it to somebody to really needs that job. Even without that moral issue, this makes still sense from a business point of view: All else equal, hiring a poor worker is probably perferable to hiring a wealthy one, as the poor worker has more incentives to work really hard.

View on HN

Actually, money worries are some of the worst things your employees can have. An employee without them is happier and more productive. So I would definitely hire the one with the minimum income.

Reminds me of the research that came out in the last year that shows being in poverty is equivalent to losing about 13 IQ points[1]

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/29/poverty-menta...

> All else equal, hiring a poor worker is probably perferable to hiring a wealthy one, as the poor worker has more incentives to work really hard.

Or conversely, they might just have more incentive to do what it takes to get paid rather than doing a good job. I think work ethics is a better incentive.

> Can this really work when applied just partially?

Since this is an experiment I doubt anyone reasonable participating in it would leave their work and live only on basic income. So the result is already determined - basic income doesn't change anything.

IMO to test basic income theory, it should be implemented nation-wide for unspecified period of time - with the ability to cancel it at anytime in case of when negative effects significantly outweight positive ones. When it gets cancelled it failed.

>somebody to really needs that job.

That somebody would not "really need that job" because they would be guaranteed a basic income no matter what in a real world scenario.

I think you misinterpreted things. Re-read the original comment

Yeah, but their point is its not really a real world scenario.

Since the other person, who's not taking part in the study, wont receive a basic income, the person in the study might feel morally required to give up their job potential job to the person who really needs it, which means the results of the study will be inconclusive.

Are they even going to know who else is participating in the study, and who else is applying for their jobs?

When you go apply for a job, do you find out who else applied, and decide if any of them "need" the job more than you?

No, what vog means I think is that if A receives basic income competes with someone B who doesn't receive basic income (because only 250 people gets it in that test), then the moral thing to do from A's point of view is to voluntarily lose to B since B needs it more than he does.

So having a small sample set in a big city invalidates part of the experience since the situation is very different from what would really happen if everyone had a guaranteed minimal income.

There are other reasons to "really need a job" though. Self-realization, fulfillment, social coherence come to mind. Or are those factors of happiness reserved only for the 1%?

Yeah, seems like as good a time as any to pull out Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs.

http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/169/does-evidence-...

The 1% are perennially unhappy, or why else should they spread their misery to the rest?

A koan, of sorts, rough-shod and ill-fitted, yet perfectly shaped for the game.

" All else equal, hiring a poor worker is probably perferable to hiring a wealthy one, as the poor worker has more incentives to work really hard."

Read from the other side, hiring a poor worker is preferable because they'll put up with more abuse, as they don't have much in the way of choice.

It is damn near impossible for the homeless to find work.

> So if any of these selected people will try to find a job, they will probably voluntarily "lose" it to somebody to really needs that job.

[citation needed]

> All else equal, hiring a poor worker is probably perferable to hiring a wealthy one, as the poor worker has more incentives to work really hard.

[citation needed]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com