from the What-would-YOU-do-with-a-basic-income? dept.
The highly-anticipated experiment with basic income from Silicon Valley finance firm Y Combinator appears to be making good progress. The company has chosen Elizabeth Rhodes as the project's Research Director, opting for the little-known PHD graduate over applications from tenured professors working at Oxford and Harvard universities. Oakland, California is where the basic income research will happen: the community has been chosen for its close proximity to Y Combinator's head office, and the much-reported wealth divide in the locality.
Related Stories
Y Combinator to set up China arm with former Baidu executive Qi Lu as chief
American start-up incubator Y Combinator is setting up shop in China, with a new unit to be led by former Baidu chief operating officer Qi Lu.
Sam Altman, Y Combinator's president, said in a company announcement Wednesday that China had been "an important missing piece of our puzzle" when it came to sourcing new start-ups to take under its wing.
"We think that a significant percentage of the largest technology companies that are founded in the next decade — companies at the scale of Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook — will be based in the U.S. and China," Altman said. "YC's greatest strength is our founder community and with the launch of YC China we believe we have a special opportunity to include many more Chinese founders in our global community."
Google's back in China. Now it's time to do a search for entrepreneurs.
Also at CNN.
See also: Y Combinator invests in a build-your-own mac and cheese restaurant
Related: The Basic Income Experiment by Y Combinator Draws Nearer
A Startup is Pitching a Mind-Uploading Service That is "100 Percent Fatal"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @10:13AM
I got a solution! Basic income gonna solv..... oh wait.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @10:35AM
Quick, everybody immigrate to Oakland right now! Make BASIC INCOME FAIL because of IMMIGRATION bitches!!
Vote Trump
Build a Wall
MAKE MURICA GREAT AGAIN
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @11:23AM
Hacker News bans people for dissenting from the Communist Party line (try telling the truth about traitor Ed Snowden or con artist Zoe Quinn, say goodbye to your account)
now YC is running an experiment in communism
"we don't know how to pay for it" - people could have told you that years ago if you hadn't banned them
hell, I'll tell you the results of the study before you run it. 90% of the funds will be spent on malt liquor and there will be a tiny handful of success stories, less than a dozen out of hundreds of participants. The study will claim that small minority are representative of the whole and that the experiment was a success and should become government policy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @11:35AM
"try telling the truth about traitor Ed Snowden"
let's hear this "truth"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @12:19PM
Basic income is not communism.
Communism is, what you get is only determined by your needs, not by what you are doing.
Basic income is, you get enough money to survive, but if you want more, you are free to work for it.
(Score: 2) by acp_sn on Thursday June 02 2016, @03:38PM
The problem isn't the idea but in the details.
What exactly does it meant "to survive"? Does that include 100 suits of clothes for all possible weather conditions? Does it include multiple personal vehicles? Does it include a private bathroom? How about a private swimming pool?
Someone has to make the decision about what is required to "survive" and that person will have power over everyone who receives the "basic income".
(Score: 0, Troll) by DECbot on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:26PM
In the neighborhood chosen for the study, the requirements for survival are pretty strait forward. A 40 of MGD, a fifth of malt liquor, and a colt 45. I expect to see the cost of rent go up as the area is now flood with cash just for living there.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03 2016, @05:59AM
Peg it as a percentage of GDP.
Easy.
Does this mean that in times of economic shock people who could live exclusively on BI can continue to do so? No.
But it is self-correcting in that as GDP increases, people are given more.
And if there are too many people not contributing to the economy, the BI contracts.
Give me a Nobel Prize!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03 2016, @02:20AM
Yes. I like to go further and not call it Basic Income but Social Dividend. If you view society as a whole as a corporation that transforms productivity into wealth and goods, society, as shareholders so to speak, are entitled to receive dividend. It isn't socialism and not at all communism. I'd say it's honest and fair capitalism. The way capitalism should be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03 2016, @07:18AM
The thing is, if most people end up having just the basic income (As jobs are devoured by AI and automation as it's starting to occur already) ... where exactly will the money for the basic income come from?
If it's taxes... well... companies don't really pay proper taxes, and if you're going to depend on taxes from the people getting it, there's no way it'll sustain itself.
And if most people ARE limited to just the basic income... what money are they expected to spend to support those big companies that don't want to hire them.
Questions like these are the things pretty much everyone is avoiding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 04 2016, @01:48AM
Huh. It's an even bigger problem for those companies if there wasn't basic income. After all McD can switch to robots but then who would have money to eat at McD? How often do the 1% eat at McD? Doubt it's often enough to keep all of it running.
So the rich and smart people see this as a possible future and are trying to avoid the pitchforks.
A lot of the stuff they enjoy is because of the 99%. Most people are social animals, it's nice to walk into a cafe, mall or amusement park and see at least a few other humans even if you're rich enough to have some of it all at home in your fortress you're probably not rich enough to have an entire bustling city full of human pets.
The concerns are genuine, if a country's GDP per capita is insufficient then a basic income would not be enough to survive. But when the robot trucks come millions of truckers and truck stop workers will start losing their jobs and you won't need that many truckers to build those robots. But it won't be overnight. People would lose their jobs, switch to worse jobs, buy less so there would be even less need for trucks to move stuff about, many companies would shrink.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03 2016, @11:35AM
So, pretty much the same as neo-liberalism then?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @11:59AM
Everyone needs a gentle reminder now and then.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @02:32PM
http://evonomics.com/how-universal-basic-income-solves/ [evonomics.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:28PM
I admit I'm not that sharp, but what is the angle on this? Why is this being pushed by tech barons who worship the Allmighty Dollar?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:35PM
Because they are demand-side economists. If you are at the level where the basic income is a real boon, then it is because you will spend it. That increase of demand will mean more people buy things and the rich make more money through that. Plus, money beyond necessities will likely be spent on their toys. It has the added benefit of looking altruistic because people at the bottom will be able to live off the money.
However, most of that assumes people are not in massive debt. This is because people have the nasty habit of paying down their debts, rather than use the money in more disposable wants.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday June 03 2016, @08:44AM
They can also see that will offshoring, less and less manufacturing, basically a much smaller middle class [helpfully shifted to the 'poor' class], they really won't have very many people to sell to. So, they figure the best thing is to keep doing all that stuff [make more and more people poor and fewer and fewer people middle class and/or rich], the gov't should just print more money to give to the poor, who will promptly give it to the rich in order to survive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:54PM
And then they can point to a study and say 'see we tried! it failed completely! now stop with that silly idea and get back to work you serf.'
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03 2016, @12:21AM
Colorado paradise (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged - it's worth reading for the same reason you sometimes watch a movie; everybody else has) and it no longer seems to be paradise. In fact it is dangerously close to collapsing so better try something/anything.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:39PM
My mind is reeling from thinking of ways this won't work. Starting with where this free money is going to come from. As more people get on basic income, where is the money going to come from? Rather than encourage people to do art and music, it's going to discourage the suckers who still work for a living. Why should I work to pay taxes when I'm just giving other people a free ride? (This issue is not discussed enough. Our US tax code is set up now to discourage people from doing things because if you start something on the side, you pay the maximum marginal tax rate on whatever you earn. Why not reform that before starting basic income?) If we get rid of welfare programs like food stamps, what is going to stop people from spending all their basic money on vices? What will we do with people who make poor decisions on a day-one bender and can't subsist until the next payment? Where are these people going to live? Section 8 housing is already in bad shape, with waiting lists to get into run-down properties. Will the government use the houses it's on the hook for after the mortgage crisis and give them to basic income people? That's actually not a bad idea, except what is going to stop them from becoming drug dens? And so on. Basic income is a bad idea being pushed by people who are either naive or have ulterior motives. It will never work in reality.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:20PM
Basic Income differs from welfare in that it is not clawed back if you decide to start working.
That way, there is no perverse disincentive to work.
If you are on welfare working actually costs you money. Beyond the 50-100% claw-back rate, working incurs transportation costs.
Depending on the job, food an laundry cost may go up. If a single parent starts working, child care costs come into play as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @10:39PM
Basic Income differs from welfare in that it is not clawed back if you decide to start working.
Only if you do not understand that money if fungible.
What do I mean by that? Lets say your basic income level is 20k. Hey not bad right?
Well now you are willing to work for less 20k less to be exact. So now you are more competitive right? Well not really. As guess who is paying for that 20k. The employer. Also everyone else is doing the exact same thing.
Now how do you pay for this? Taxes. Taxes on employees (you know the 99%). But I hear you say 'no its the employer that is paying it'. Well not really. They just pay less to make it up. Its easy too 'sorry total costs are a bit up this year and we cant give you a raise'. Boom paid for out of my raise.
Money is fungible and can be used for other things.
You see 1%rs calling for it. Which is odd. Why would they do that? Think about who will control the amount. Suddenly you have the ability to control what people do. You can put strings on the basic income. You can say 'to qualify you need to do XYZ'. That is power. That is the ability to control what people say and do. It is not freedom. It is the same economic slavery. It is only just slightly better than welfare.
This is mostly a 'do nothing' other than who signs your check and puts a small select group of people in charge of your money. Creates a even larger bureaucracy for people to jump thru hoops. Under the guise of looking good.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 03 2016, @01:55AM
Basic Income differs from welfare in that it is not clawed back if you decide to start working.
Only if you do not understand that money if fungible.
What do I mean by that? Lets say your basic income level is 20k. Hey not bad right?
Well now you are willing to work for less 20k less to be exact. So now you are more competitive right? Well not really. As guess who is paying for that 20k. The employer. Also everyone else is doing the exact same thing.
I notice that you agree ("now you are willing to work for less"). Money being fungible doesn't change that there is more incentive to work than under a traditional welfare system which cuts off entitlements when you earn too much.
This is mostly a 'do nothing' other than who signs your check and puts a small select group of people in charge of your money. Creates a even larger bureaucracy for people to jump thru hoops. Under the guise of looking good.
We already had that with the current welfare state. Bleedings hearts gotta bleed. At least a basic income would reduce the opportunities and scope for hoop making.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday June 03 2016, @06:12AM
There are two ways to implement Basic income:
1. Negative tax rate for low income
Cheaper to run, you need to file your taxes to qualify
2. Everybody get as payment
You qualify by being a registered citizen (possibly of a certain age).
Putting strings on Basic Income defeats the whole point. Things like mean testing are expensive to administer, and there will be people that fall through the cracks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:40PM
It is strange to me that so many people associate welfare and other types of assistance with drug abuse and vices. The vast majority are the working poor who can barely get by, the abusers are a much smaller proportion. Actually, I'm not surprised, the druggie welfare momma meme is one that has been pushed by Fox news and various radio and news outlets so that people thin socialism is evil, that way the corporate powers can privatize everything and squeeze every penny from the government and its citizens. The reality is that most people on welfare are working but aren't paid enough to get by. There are actually a LOT of such people, and they are one accident or health problem away from becoming homeless and spiraling into that vicious cycle.
If the abusers want to spend their money on getting high instead of a decent place to live and food to eat, then that is their choice. You are ignoring the obvious side effect, that these people will not turn to crime and panhandling to pay for their habits. That alone is worth the savings in prison costs and benefits to public safety for everyone.
You can't declare its a bad idea based on your wild assumptions. Personally without an actual government program I see this as a stunt, and beyond that running a pilot program in one of the most divided areas in the nation risks extreme results which could be bad no matter which way they go. If it is a wild success then that may encourage a blind copying of the program, if it is a total failure then it could be a good idea that was badly implemented but will never see the light of day again.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03 2016, @06:04AM
We could use Sarah Palin's Alaska as a model.
USA.gov *could* consider all natural resources as the property of ALL USAians, held in trust.
Every resident of the USA gets a check periodically.
Yeah. Mind-boggling. I know.
The Alaska Permanent Fund[1] [googleusercontent.com] (orig)[1] [popularresistance.org]
[1] Recommended temporary AdBlock filter: ##div.widget
I can't believe I'm giving Sarah Palin props twice in one comment. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org]
The airwaves could also be considered a finite natural resource and for-profit broadcasters could be charged accordingly--instead of giving that away for free.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Thursday June 02 2016, @07:08PM
In Switzerland, a national referendum on a guaranteed income is scheduled for 5 June.
http://www.dw.com/en/basic-income-forhttp://money.cnn.com/2016/05/24/news/economy/switzerland-guaranteed-basic-income/index.html-the-swiss/a-19016377 [dw.com]
Finland is going to test the idea next year with 10,000 people.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/24/news/economy/switzerland-guaranteed-basic-income/index.html [cnn.com]