A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/437088/utrecht-will-give-money-for-free-to-its-citizens-will-it-make-them-lazier/ <comment><USER3> One of the first pieces of advice I had when my company landed its investment was to pay ourselves a decent (not extravagant) wage so that my time went on worrying about the company rather than how I was going to afford to do things in my personal life. The same is true for employees - if they're paid a good living they will spend more time on thinking about problems in their job instead.

If a government were to do that for everyone it seems pretty obvious that society will be better off - people will spend their time working on things to improve everyone's life rather than worrying about how to afford their rent.

<comment><USER4> People starting companies are driven, determined people who want to create things.

The vast majority of people are not. You're vastly over-estimating the general population. The majority are lazy, and if given money, will sit watching reality TV and stuffing their face with ice cream. (Step outside the startup bubble for a while). Most people are also selfish. The idea that they'll all start doing things to benefit others is a bit far fetched.

Communism (Which is what this is), has failed. Why this generation seems determined to try it again is beyond me.

This is about stealing money from the successful, and giving it to everyone, regardless of merit. It's a fantastic way to reward failure and penalise success, and society will suffer because of it. The numbers are also staggering - it just doesn't work mathematically unless you can magic up billions from somewhere each year.

Also be under no illusion - if a basic income was implemented, the chances are (Assuming you're better off than the average person) you would have to reduce your quality of life substantially to pay for it.

<comment><USER5> > Communism (Which is what this is), has failed. Why this generation seems > determined to try it again is beyond me.

A bit of a stretch there and i should know i was born in a communist country. The reason Communism has failed is because of the lack of checks and balances on power compounded with corruption not because of concepts like this.

> This is about stealing money from the successful, and giving it to everyone, > regardless of merit.

Be realistic most rich people are not rich because they are extraordinarily successful it's because they are born rich and there's entire companies with the sole goal of taking advantage of the system (in some cases doing morally wrong things that are technically legal) in order to make rich people get richer. Over the past 5 - 10 years the middle class has been getting poorer while the rich have been getting richer even with the economy collapsing. If you start off rich a lot of doors that are closed for regular people are wide open to you so you don't have to be successful just don't be a fool.

I see basic income as more of a equalizer so people who can't afford billion dollar companies and robotics to replace the workers get to eat as well.

<comment><USER6> The real reason Communism couldn't succeed (not necessarily the reason it failed) is because none of the countries trying it were or are advanced capitalistic economies before the revolution. Imagine a transition into communism in a less-scarcity scenario, where robots generate so much material wealth as to provide it to everyone, and no one HAS to work, and technology married to political science in turn allows more distributed forms of governance by the people for the people. Once you have that, and of course less bigots running the roost, you have a shot, as a society, to completely do away with 'marginalization', since every city and every community will be self-contained and no one will have to do commutes to serve a master.

Communism, for all I know, is the alternative to Totalitarism (be it from American corporate overlords or from so called extreme "left") in a future where jobs are no longer to be found lying around. It probably won't be called communism, though. China or Germany (and other smaller european countries) may have a shot, but the US seems destined to be ruled by corporate emperors.

<comment><USER7> > because none of the countries trying it were or are advanced capitalistic > economies before the revolution

revolution was the least common way to turn communist. Far more common was "forced by nearby communist country"

Also for example Czechoslovakia was advanced capitalist country. It's often overlooked - it was very industrialized country, with long capitalistic traditions, and democracy before WW2. It also went through war relatively unscratched. In 1950 it had GDP per capita roughly equal to Italy and Ireland, 50% higher than Spain.

> Imagine a transition into communism in a less-scarcity scenario

From the POV of medieval people We're already in a less-scarcity scenario. We just don't like to share, as a species. I highly doubt technology will change that.

<comment><USER8> > Czechoslovakia was advanced capitalist country

Did it have sufficient over-production that redistribution would remove "common wants" for everyone?

As early as 1845, Marx set that out as a central criteria that would have to be met before a socialist revolution would have any hope of succeeding.

> We just don't like to share, as a species.

And in fact, this is a central aspect of Marx' argument _for_ socialist revolutions: We don't like sharing, and so for the vast majority of workers, the only way of getting a reasonable share is to join up and force the upper classes to surrender their wealth.

Marxism is basically founded on two ideas: 1) Capitalism will eventually make production efficient enough to produce substantial surpluses. 2) Workers will only get "their" share by cooperating to fight the ruling classes, and if they don't they will eventually get marginalised as capitalist competition starts driving down employment and/or incomes.

Nothing assumes people wanting to share. On the contrary, the Marxist focus on revolution is basically based on the idea that there's no chance you'll get wealthy ruling classes to voluntarily give up their wealth.

<comment><USER7> > Nothing assumes people wanting to share.

It assumes once workers won the surpluses won't decrease.

This turned out to be false assumption, because people don't like to share, so they don't work as well if they only get part of the fruits of their work, as they would if they got most of the fruits of their work for themselves.

<comment><USER8> Today they don't generally get a share of the surplus, so by your argument they should be working even worse.

<comment><USER7> In "the west" they get less than in 50s, but they still do.

The important thing is - salaries depend on their performance and on the demand for given product/service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The basic income concept is intriguing to me (because it simplifies things) but I do not think it will work for this reason: Who administers the basic income? The government and by extension politicians. Once they have every single person who breathes on the dole, this will give them unbelievable leverage against the people. If the government is giving everyone a check, how hard is it to argue that the check should be more? Not hard. How hard is it to reduce the amount of the check. Almost impossible.

It will eventually devolve into a problem like Greece has now. Too many people receiving money, not enough people paying in.

Besides that, asking any government to take money from the people, run it through the giant bureaucracy machine, and magically produce a net benefit to the people is both logically impossible and naturally never going to happen.

I'm sure it will be attempted in America at some point and the "public servants" are licking their chops.

<comment><USER10> America will be about the last place to attempt this, if the past (and our current welfare) are any guide.

It's an interesting concept. My immediate reaction is that it creates disincentives to work. In theory it does, but the only data we have is those who are currently on welfare and do not work -- but maybe those people were basically not going to work anyway! We have no competing group of people who are on welfare yet still CHOOSE to work to better their lives, because as soon as someone gets a job, no more benefits! So it's natural that an outsize chunk of people on public assistance don't work -- and the ones who stay on the longest, of course, don't WANT to work. But it undercounts those who go on the system then back out of it as they get work.

Other things that seem "obvious" to result: inflation. If everyone can afford $x for housing, why should housing costs not go up by a similar amount? The same way 2 incomes is now "normal", and the same way giving tax deductions on mortgage interest to make housing "more affordable" means, now that everyone can afford more housing, housing is bid up.

I don't know, but it's a fascinating experiment, anyone who is not paying for it should be in favor of this experiment -- unless you just hate poor people.

<comment><USER11> > I don't know, but it's a fascinating experiment, anyone who is not paying > for it should be in favor of this experiment -- unless you just hate poor > people.

What a bizarre statement. It's really easy to read that as two things:

1\. You're totally game to experiment, just so long as it's not your money. 2\. Anyone who doesn't agree must hate poor people.

I'm pretty certain you didn't really mean either, but the net result of that sentence is awfully unproductive: "anyone who doesn't like this must either have skin in the game or hate poor people!"

<comment><USER12> That's the common tactic of argument these days. The notion of "criticism" has been re-cast as "hate". Hate is more easily dismissed, ridiculed, and trivialized.

<comment><USER10> After re-reading your parent's statement a few times, I think (s)he thought I was saying you must dislike it if you're paying for it, but if you're not paying for it, you can't dislike it.

I merely was saying I can't see a valid criticism for those of us who aren't paying for it. There may be some valid criticisms of the idea, but I'd rather see how this goes.

I can't think of a single (valid) reason to oppose basic research on solving poverty, when that research has no negative impact on the person who might be opposing it. Can you? The only one I can think of is "I want to ensure poor people are kept poor."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It looks like this is not a "saturation" site for testing the basic income theory. All participants appear to start with the same income, but the basic income group receives their income with no strings attached. This can create some unfortunate incentives that would not occur had everyone received a basic income.

For example, if you have one group with a basic income and one group without a basic income in the same population, the group without would be more likely to be hired for low wage jobs because that salary is much more important to them. If everyone had a basic income, then all potential hires would be on an equal footing and it would not look like the non-basic income group is more employable.

One way to test the basic income theory is to give everyone a very low basic income and then slowly increase that amount over time. If basic income works, it should be beneficial even at low rates that do not massively disrupt the tax and welfare system. When this is seen to have beneficial effects (or at least not adverse effects), the rates can be increased.

<comment><USER14> >the group without would be more likely to be hired for low wage jobs because that salary is much more important to them.

That's not necessarily how it would work. In the UK we've had a top up with tax credits for low paid jobs. What we've seen is an explosion of low paid part time jobs as businesses know people will take them as their income will be topped up by the govt.

<comment><USER15> That's irritating to read because when basic income is being discussed it's always about people taking advantage of it for not working when in the real world it's more likely the bosses and the people in power who will take advantage of it (and they will, a relative of mine lost his job at 50 because a govt sponsored win-win program targeting the youth: hire a young gun and the govt will pay a part of his salary. Now they had to pay my relative a hefy sum of money in social benefits. He luckily found a better job later and his old company is now playing carousel with young guns and getting less done of course.)

<comment><USER16> well those who take advantage of it from the top down tend to be those who already are willing to work and employ others. As in, those who don't want work are not likely to see it.

So I would not worry about it when the bosses and people in power step in unless they are laying off those already employed to do so. That is the area where abuse would be bad and must be prevented

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Basic Income is sometimes dogmatically derided as 'socialist' thus evil. Proponents of Basic Income - or varieties thereof - can be found on the left and the right of the economic political compass. Even Milton Freedman was a proponent of some guise.

Personally I think it is lazy to dismiss the thinking behind Basic Income as merely communism.

<comment><USER18> There is no arguing that basic income, welfare, disability benefit etc. are socialist. That is not deriding them, it is an accurate description. It's strange that this is a bad term in the US, not so here in the EU.

<comment><USER19> It's not even slightly socialist. People talk as if all government action is socialist, but socialism includes controlling the means of production not just taxes. In the end the problems with socialism are organizational in nature, and large corporations face the same issues of misaligned incentives.

Edit: A minimum wage is socialist a minimum income is not.

PS: Now you could call it collectivist.

<comment><USER20> Since he mentions he is European, I think that he is thinking about Social Democracy rather than Socialism (which has a very clear economic meaning which, like you said, assumes state/social control of the means of production).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The international press seemed to get hold of this last week and the early coverage pointed to a Dutch article with far more direct quotes [1]. My Dutch is poor but my understanding is that the primary aim is as much (if not more) about reducing administrative burden as it is about basic/universal income.

Also, I haven't seen any coverage in the mainstream Dutch press... which is somewhat telling.

[1] [http://destadutrecht.nl/politiek/utrecht-start-experiment- me...](http://destadutrecht.nl/politiek/utrecht-start-experiment-met- basisinkomen/)

<comment><USER22> Interesting, thanks for that.

Here's a quick translation (I tried to do it correctly, but didn't want to spent too much time on it)

Utrecht starts experiment with basic income.

16-06-2015 • 10:15

Everhardt2

After the summer holidays Utrechts starts an experiment around the basic income. Counciller Victor Everhardt from "Work and income" likes to see if a basic income principle works in practice. "It would be more simple if the system is again based on trust."

Why this experiment?

I have been counciller "Work and Income" for a year and I think that it's a sign of civilisation that people who, usually temporary, but sometimes also longer, cannot take care of their income get social security benefits. At the other end of that system we have built up a huge verification system, often based on mistrust.

People with benefits usually have to take into account a large number of rules, like welfare, special welfare, rent assistance, children welfare etcetera. All these systems have their own verification mechanisms. There's a forest for the trees amount of rules and verification methods. It's quite easy to get stuck here. It would be a lot simpler if we could base the system again on trust.

People could abuse this and not go to work?

From our data it appears that less then 1.5 percent abuses the welfare payments system. However, before we get into all kinds of principle debates about should we do this or not, we would like to research how a basic income system works.

What happens if somebody gets a monthly payment without additional rules and verifications? Will such a person go sit at home passively or is that person more motivated to develop him/herself and make a meaningful contribution to our society with paid or voluntary work?

How are you going to research that?

Together with the University of Utrecht we have designed an experiment at which people who live on welfare get to meet specific regimes. For example a group that works with rewards and 'jobs' for a payment, another group with a basic income without any additional rules and of course a control group that lives by the current rules.

And are you allowed to do this from the minister?

We have verified this at official level to see if an experiment with a basic income is possible and we have not yet heard "njet". In addition, minister Plasterk of internal affairs has announced that cities should get more room to experiment with existing law. We think the basic income is very suitable for this.

When does the experiment with basic income start?

End of June we have an expert meeting about basic income with other cities that also have plans into the same direction, like Nijmegen, Wageningen, Tilburg and Groningen. Together we can make our call for more room of possibilities for cities stronger. In addition we like to start with the experiment in the second half of this year.

(deStadUtrecht.nl – Mario Gibbels)

edit: spelling, readability and line spacing

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I live in france (10% unemployment), and unless you're listed as seeking work, you're not given welfare.

It's odd because they don't really check that you send resumes, nor do they really try to contact companies or just propose you a shitty jobs. The "get a job" mentality is really weird to me, because if you have freedom, and you can't find a job that suits you or that you're just too humiliated to beg all those employers, why punish people for being moochers ?

Unemployment is such a political subject, it always ends up being about social stratification anyways. Employed people are just safe and sound, and there are many parameters and behaviors that keep many individuals away from employment or social integration.

Being a marginal and being unemployed, to me are the same problem.

The UBI solves this problem, since it's injecting money that increase consumption, which in turn also increase business and growth.

<comment><USER24> That money has to come from somewhere, it will either reduce the consumption from where it was taken or it will reduce capital stocks that can be used for investment.

<comment><USER25> Look at, eg, the English "Working family tax credits" system.

People on low wages pay some tax on those wages, then apply to have some of that tax returned. There's a lot of bureaucracy involved. It's not great to be on those benefits because you can't budget your money.

Scrapping that system and then just reducing the amount of tax that everyone on low wages pays would probably be better.

<comment><USER26> That may be true, but dantheman was simply correcting jokoon's implicit claim that paying people money is good in itself ("since it's injecting money that increase consumption, which in turn also increase business and growth.")

I think there are good arguments for basic income, but they get obscured by the fact that it has become a political campaign, so people like you argue for their own side rather than correcting people who support basic income but for the wrong reason.

You are correct that there are reasons why basic income be more efficient than other redistribution measures. But this doesn't contradict the fact that the money has to come from somewhere, and it isn't relevant to this particular thread of discussion.

<comment><USER23> Voting a budget is a tricky subject. Sometimes ideals will get you nowhere, but I think developed countries have showed that redistributing improve not only the country as a whole, but it also improve the status of the wealthiest, the wealthy people will benefit from the fact that people are fed, educated and not just wandering around either stealing or doing shitty jobs.

At that political level, money becomes an abstract thing, and I think it becomes a matter of national interest, not individual interest. Try to think about absolute wealth, not relative wealth. If the koch brothers can have 100 villas, would they be able to have so many without a redistribution system ? I don't think they would. Look at developing or third world countries, and look at their wealthiest, I'm sure they don't even have proper health care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > "People say they are not going to try as hard to find a job,"

Or they will bargain for a job that is worth their time so they won't accept a job that won't improve their lives. That is a subtle but important difference from just sitting around because they can.

My bet is that when people aren't bargaining for their life -- food, shelter etc because those things are a given they will begin making trades that are a net positive for them rather than just trying to control their losses. 'Head above water' bargaining is a fact of life for the poor that is easy for the middle and upper classes to forget. It leads directly and almost inevitably to exploitation by the other party that is in a better bargaining position.

Further in the article it talks about young men continuing school and mothers staying home and taking care of children. These are decisions that are made by people who are not desperate and not in a terrible bargaining position.

I'm excited to see the results whether they agree with my intuition or not. We need more policy experimentation in the US and I'd love to see some of that experimentation in this direction.

</comment><comment><USER28> The more I think about it, the more I really like the idea of a basic income. One of the great things about universal healthcare is that you just never worry about it. I never have to think about what would happen to myself or my spouse or my kids if they get cancer after I quit or lose my job. Whether my insurance will fight me on some treatment, or if it covers the rights things. It's nice.

Basic income seems like it will give you that kind of piece of mind as well. You know that in the worst case, you'll have a hassle-free, indefinite, (modest) income to get you by. That's worth something.

<comment><USER29> The output side of BI is naturally attractive. Everybody gets money. How could that _not_ be attractive?

I'm just skeptical about how we would fund BI to a level that is meaningful while maintaining some modicum of equitability and equanimity. Just to lift everyone to the poverty line in the USA ($11,770) would require paying out more than $3 trillion in net benefits, or roughly the size of the entire federal budget today.

<comment><USER30> What if it was per family-ish. Then it'd only be about military exp size

<comment><USER29> For poverty line, on a family basis, the incremental cost of another person approaches $5k (compared to $11.7k) so taking families into account the lower bound of payments is $1.5-2 trillion (if all we had were really big families)

[http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm](http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The article is unclear, if not misleading.

They are not testing a universal basic income scheme. They are testing an unrestricted basic income scheme, for welfare recipients only. If the experiment is a success it would mean that welfare schemes will become less paternalistic.

</comment><comment><USER32> 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.

<comment><USER33> >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.

<comment><USER34> 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%?

<comment><USER35> 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs).

<comment><USER36> [http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/169/does- evidence-...](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/169/does-evidence- support-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> ryan-allen I wonder how much you'd need to save and to own in order to conduct this experiment on yourself? I've wondered about what I would do day to day if I didn't 'have to work to live'.

I honestly think I'd be doing very similar things. I'd still be programming, and I'd be wanting to make things that'd help people do their jobs better, but I wouldn't feel like I 'had to'.

That alone would improve my sanity immensely (I think), and yet it's only a small conceptual jump between what I'm already doing day-to-day.

<comment><USER37> The problem there is that you have a cushy programming job.

The bigger question is what about the gas station clerks? Or cleaning people? Or wait staff? Or any of the people working the millions of other jobs that just totally suck. Having done it in the past, I'm 100% sure nobody wakes up totally stoked to go bus tables or wash dishes.

So, maybe people who have awesome jobs will just keep doing what they're doing, but for people with shitty jobs, why not say, "F __* it, I can get by with the guaranteed minimum, so why bother? "

<comment><USER38> If nobody is required to do the "shitty jobs", I wonder if those jobs would increase in value as less people do them? Maybe having a waiter at a restaurant would become a luxury.

Perhaps all the jobs would continue to exist but there'd be some very interesting rebalancing.

<comment><USER39> Very likely. Think of how uncommon household servants are today compared to before the industrial revolution. Now only the super-rich have them, as a rule. The rest of us get by with automation (washing machines, vacuum cleaners), with the occasional hiring of a temporary "servant" when neccessary (e.g., calling a cab compared to having a dedicated chauffeur, or having a landscaper or cleaning service come in once in a while).

<comment><USER37> I'm almost certain household servants have always been for the rich.

I'm curious what makes you think otherwise?

<comment><USER39> No, middle-class people had servants back then. It wasn't just the rich.

The lower class, of course, largely _were_ servants.

The industrial revolution opened up other avenues for employment.

Edit: see, for example, [http://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/articles/the- victorian-mi...](http://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/articles/the-victorian- middle-classes)

"A middle class woman was entirely dependent on a supply of domestic servants, ranging from the untrained 'slavey' to a staff of several highly trained specialists."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> When I see that discussion about basic income I am always wandering, who is going to pay for that?

I assume the money will not be printed (this would not help, as inflation would make that income very small).

So the country that applies such policy must have some way of finding money. Some countries have natural resources that they can sell, so the problem is solved. But how about the rest?

I guess this will be financed by those, who are earning more money.

Let's forget about the question if this is moral or not to take away money from people who are working hard just to give away these money to those, who are not working at all.

However the taxation will make costs of work higher and higher. Country economy would become less competitive.

In addition avoiding taxes would start to be really profitable - people would start opening fake companies abroad, create fake costs, etc. it happens now as well, but the scale could be much bigger.

As usually, big players would be able to avoid taxes, so the one who would be hurt most are the "middle class". Taxes will eat their profits and the gap between the best earning people and the rest would be growing and growing.

For me it looks a bit as if we were trying to solve the problems caused by goods redistribution by applying more goods redistribution.

<comment><USER41> Most civilized countries already have something very similar - <USER2> security. Everyone who works pays into the system that distributes that money among those who are unemployed.

It's a type of insurance if you will. If I participate in the system, I can be reasonably sure that were I to lose my job, I wouldn't end up on the streets.

A spectacular example of why this is a good thing is J.K Rowling who was able to write Harry Potter because the British welfare system kept her in reasonably good shape after she lost her job -> [http://imgur.com/gallery/FIQYq](http://imgur.com/gallery/FIQYq)

I've never understood the exact differences between basic income and social security, but it fundamentally feels like such a safety net should exist.

<comment><USER42> > I've never understood the exact differences between basic income and social > security,

The difference is that _everybody_ gets basic income, and not just the unemployed. You don't get a sharp division between the employed and the unemployed, your welfare won't get cut when you start earning money. Work is always rewarded, and it's easier to get out of the poverty trap.

<comment><USER41> That sounds even better than welfare then!

And for the countries that have already got welfare, the argument of "But nobody is going to work!" is already out the window. If that were a real problem, everybody would already be on welfare.

Yes there are people that abuse it. The vast majority doesn't. Even if it's just because they couldn't look their friends in the eye if they did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Every time universal basic income is discussed someone claims it can't be done because if we were to do this tomorrow the costs would be astronomical. That's true, but it's a bit like stating in 1950 that the world will never see personal computing because a computer costs millions and there are billions of people.

Universal basic income amounts to (providing or) paying for food, clothing and shelter. What is the cost of food when we have labgrown meat, the robots till the farm and self-driving cars deliver it everywhere?

What's the cost of shelter with industrial scale 3d-printing and robotic assembly?

What is the cost of providing everyone with basic clothing when all the factory workers are replaced with robots?

Stop worrying about the _price_ of everything and start thinking in terms of scarcity. Will the stuff required for basic human survival still be prohibitively scarce in 5 years, 10 years, 50 years?

<comment><USER44> _What 's the cost of shelter with industrial scale 3d-printing and robotic assembly?_

The cost of land plus the cost of raw materials plus the cost of extending the necessary infrastructure, so basically the same as today.

 _What is the cost of providing everyone with basic clothing when all the factory workers are replaced with robots?_

The cost of raw materials plus the cost of machinery, so basically the same as today.

Basic labor is incredibly cheap today, (desirable) land and resources aren't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> In theory, a basic income should shift wages from skill to demand. For example, sanitation workers and doctors would get a high wage whereas video game designer wages would drop. (You won't care about a video game when there is 3' of garbage on your lawn.)

<comment><USER46> I don't think demand is the word you're looking for... Maybe necessity or importance?

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> In a heavily automated society, the only question we need to answer is, should people have only as much money as they have earned, or only as much money as they need?

If the former, then it will be seen as almost immoral or evil to give a comfortable wage to someone who didn't earn it.

If the latter, then it will be seen as almost immoral for the one guy who owns the robotic factory to reap all of the profit and earn a fortune every year by having made workers redundant.

The third option is to eschew automation entirely and keep a steady supply of make-work jobs, just to justify enough salaries to keep everybody from starving. Which strikes me as more dystopian than the oligarchy in option #2.

<comment><USER48> The third option is what society does now. Every time you hear politicians talk about "creating jobs", that's what it means, nearly always: the amount of available make-work just went up.

We don't so much eschew robotics, as under-bid them. McDonalds finds it cheaper to hire humans than automate - for now. (The touch screen, card- accepting menus I've seen appearing lately, make the case that this won't last much longer.)

<comment><USER47> > The third option is what society does now

Yes, I did start off stipulating "in a heavily automated society". I don't think we're quite there yet, but we will be soon, and increasing our make-work programs in lock-step with the progress of automation is a quick road to dystopia #3.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Any discussion of basic income should at least mention the excellent novel by Janusz Zajdel, "Limes Inferior" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_inferior](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_inferior)). I think he very accurately portrays a system where everyone is guaranteed basic income (along with some other interesting and mostly terrifying concepts).

It is true (and sad, I think) that many people, given basic income, will do nothing to improve themselves or their surroundings. But I still think basic income is an idea worth pursuing.

<comment><USER50> _Limes inferior_ has not been translated to English (I was only able to find amateur translations of the first chapter [1]) and as such remains largely unknown outside Poland. Which is extremely unfortunate.

[1]: [http://paczemoj.blogspot.com/2011/11/limes-inferior- chp-1.ht...](http://paczemoj.blogspot.com/2011/11/limes-inferior-chp-1.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> The pirate party in Germany had this as one of their ideas (Grundeinkommen), not sure if they still do. I like this. My basic economic instincts scream "nonsense" but I like testing it even if the test results are likely useless because the city is still surrounded by "normal" ones. Reminds me a bit of the socialist calculation debate.

There's enough money wasted on stuff I consider more useless and at least this experiment has the potential to generate surprises. I'm all for experimenting with economic systems, worst case it generates some new ideas.

</comment><comment><USER52> The main thing to remember with this is that even if you do end up with a % of people who do just bum around on basic, a lot more still would rather earn enough to live a more interesting life. And wages will probably go up to incentivize people to do the crap jobs - or encourage someone to find a way to automate it.

</comment><comment><USER53> My knee-jerk reaction was 'ah, jeez - there's going to be a big percentage of lazy people just gaming the system'. But on reflection, as some other posters have already said, these folks would probably not being looking for work regardless - and if this helps the majority be more productive and happy... to me, it's worth a punt to see what happens.

Good on you Utrecht - I love the bold thinking. It might not work - but at least they tried something new to address one of our oldest problems!

</comment><comment><USER54> The problem I see with any basic income scheme is that lazy people can get in the trap to become trapped in a lazy for ever state. Basic income should be accompanied with a policy to motivate people to develop their capabilities and enhance their self confidence. Once you are trapped in the basic income scheme and automation replaces all the low skilled jobs, lazy people can see themselves as completely disposable objects, so you need a great self- confidence and a change of mentality to change from a lazy people to a do it person.

<comment><USER55> > lazy people can get in the trap to become trapped in a lazy for ever state

Do you have any evidence for the existence of these lazy people, and in any significant number? The literature and actual experiments done with basic income shows that people are not lazy, but rather they lack opportunities, or a safety net for small risks, or any of a number of other things.

<comment><USER54> Thanks for asking for real data about this. I was only giving my very humble opinion about what could happen, I would like to know some links to literature and actual experiments with basic income. I think that laziness is learned and you need to be kicked strongly to move in a doers direction. In a weak economy with no expectations for people to progress laziness and hopeless bloom, if basic income is a step in the right direction it should be along with a way to foster better expectations. Your are not in an asylum for live.

<comment><USER55> Here are two articles that gave me insight: [http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/04income](http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/04income) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME)

Basically, people who were working out of desperation worked less, otherwise people used the money to ensure food safety, invest in businesses or improving their lives.

I really don't think "lazy" is a valuable label. It tends to be applied when there are underlying causes for the supposed "laziness". When those causes are repaired the laziness tends to go away. For example: illness, precarity, hopelessness (as you mentioned), a lack of opportunities. I'd suggest doing away with the overly simplistic "lazy" and using more accurate words which express the underlying causes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Economic experiments can never really have a control group, so what the Dutch government learns from this will depend greatly on the theory they already have when interpreting the data.

<comment><USER57> IIRC the previous article I read on this, the Dutch are at least attempting to set up a control group.

<comment><USER56> I suppose they should be commended for the effort, but the other issue is that the experimental group is unlikely to represent what things would be like under a truly universal basic income. Incentives throughout the economy will shift and cause reactions none of us can predict, except in very broad strokes. For example, €1000/mo for a tiny experimental group will probably not have the same buying power as the same amount given to millions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Are there any studies out there about the second order effects ?

If everyone is getting BI, I'm expecting rent to go up. Like, waaaaaaay up. Up to the point where no one can live from BI anymore.

<comment><USER59> When people don't have to pick their housing based on the location of low-wage jobs (dense cities), I would expect the rent to go down due to better utilization of the total housing supply.

<comment><USER60> I don't think that's how rent is set right now. I believe people charge rent based on what people can bear to pay - so as long as another person with BI comes along willing to pay the higher rent, the landlord will sell to him instead!

<comment><USER61> It's not the house that's valuable to a renter, though. Most of the price variation for a given floor space comes from location-driven land cost. If someone on basic income plans to live solely on their BI for a bit, maybe to work on a personal project, maybe just to play videogames, they won't be location-bound and can seek cheaper housing in the suburbs or a rural area. There is a lot of underutilized land in America that could become very attractive to developers if the pool of available consumers suddenly included a subgroup that didn't care about commute time. That's not just greenfield developments, either; it would also apply to major cities, like in the Rust Belt, where housing and land are incredibly cheap because there are no jobs available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Quoting a recent article in The Economist (Edited by me) " The Swiss will soon vote on a proposal for a basic income of 2,500 francs ($2,700) per month, following the success of a national petition....

Turning it into a substitute for all welfare payments would be prohibitively expensive. But it might work as one element of the safety net....

Although the basic income has so far failed to take off, it does have a commonplace cousin: the tax-free allowance....

It is feasible only if it is small, and complemented by more targeted anti- poverty measures.

Basic income: the clue is in the name. "

Full Link: [http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and- economics/21651897...](http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and- economics/21651897-replacing-welfare-payments-basic-income-all-alluring)

Also of interest (US trying basic income): [http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/go...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/government- guaranteed-basic-income)

</comment><comment><USER63> I'm a strong supporter of the concept and motivation behind universal basic income, but I admit I don't understand one part of the calculations - what's the solution for the problem of prices universally rising to the point of cancelling out the UBI? I mean, if everyone suddenly gets additional $500 a month to spend, how do you prevent the market from correcting for that?

<comment> chi-sq IANAE and would like to hear an expert's answer as well. But as far as I can see, the demand for basic food and shelter is not elastic, people need roof and bread always. And the capital is mostly reallocated from existing subsidies, not created. With UBI, prices for non-essential goods and services would maybe increase a little, and there would be a revolution in employment market, but my guess is that potatoes and basic accomodation prices would stay low.

<comment><USER64> I think basic income is a bad idea, but if you liberated people from seeking jobs, many of them wouldn't live in overcrowded cities. If rent is too high in the bay area, you'd go live in Madison, Wisconsin. Or in a pre-fab house in the middle of nowhere.

<comment><USER65> In the context of a thought experiment, where people would live is an interesting question. There are certainly many places today that are inexpensive in no small part because there are few jobs. It doesn't have to be in the middle of nowhere. Detroit qualifies too. On the other hand, moving somewhere cheaper would imply moving away from existing family and social support structures.

However, I suspect a lot of the people who are championing basic income are implicitly envisioning living in a relatively comfortable apartment in the Bay area from which they can follow their muse--not public housing in Detroit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Who are the groups driving all of the mentions of basic income/mincome on social media? Or is it a coincidence that we're seeing more and more discussion of the topic on places like reddit and HN? I'm genuinely curious to know how organic this topic is, versus whether or not there is a concerted effort to "get the word out".

<comment><USER67> My guess is that much of it comes from technologists and futurologists, who are over-represented online, and _way_ over-represented on Reddit and HN. Perhaps we've even filter-bubbled ourselves a little bit here.

In any case, the relationship between technologists/futurologists and basic income advocacy would be that basic income is the solution to an ever- shrinking labor market as automation gets better. Sort of an exit strategy from the current economic regime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Ah, finally everybody can work on their personal projects instead of an annoying job.

But won't someone have to pay all those annoying taxes? And when we go to spend other people's money, won't someone have to be there earning that money?

</comment><comment><USER69> How good of a test could it be, if its population is limited to a single Dutch city?

Europeans from small countries love to tout their welfare policies as "so much better" than places like the U.S., but they ignore one massive difference: Small European countries are localized, ethnically homogenous populations. The U.S. has to deal with more land, and more people, from more places. You cannot make an apples-to-apples comparison between welfare systems in the U.S. and small countries.

<comment><USER70> I'll give you the size and population thing but "ethnically homogenous populations" is bullshit: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/us.html) \- ~79% White

[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/nl.html) ~80% White/Dutch

So both nations have a similar level of "ethnically homogenous populations".

<comment><USER69> Is the U.S. 80% Dutch?

No.

There is more than "white" and "all other ethnicities." Considering geneology is important when designing systems like healthcare, for example. If a disease is isolated to a gene present in only people of Irish descent, and not Scandanavian descent, then the country with more Irish people will pay a higher healthcare cost than one with less. The more unique subsets of genes present in a population, the greater the ethnic diversity. Since the U.S. is comprised almost entirely of immigrants, it will naturally have a more ethnically heterogenous population than a country with population centers dating back millenia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> What about the following flavor of Basic Income:

In order to reduce the amount of money needed to support the BI scheme, you are given a card to buy some standardized products: jeans, bread, soup, chairs, tables, beds, bikes, ubuntu and the like. The main point is that those products are cheaper to produce and distribute. You lose some of the power of money but since society is paying the bill I think you should accept the deal.

Edited: grammar and shorter.

<comment><USER71> You reinvented food stamps. There will be costs running that card scheme and costs for retailers accepting it, and maybe the BI recepient wants to buy used clothing p2p or not have to go to bigbox retail corp to buy jeans. Maybe they buy fabric and make their own unique clothes now that they have time. My city is full of hipster hobbyist dressmakers and drop in sewing lounges, maybe they will become successful designers if not forced to do meaningless work to survive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> What I find is often not considered when discussing this topic are fundamental economics. Giving everyone a basic income will almost certainly be consumed by an increase in the price level of that country. A somewhat similar example are countries with very high wages like Switzerland. Wages are high but not in real terms as their price level is high also.

</comment><comment><USER73> Basic income would need to be pegged to the CPI or some standard of living.

I imagine partitioning living NEEDS [housing, food, transportation] as an area of the economy with its own money/token/basic-income-credits system separate from the WANT economy of everything else.

</comment><comment><USER74> I wonder if it is possible to design a schema to provide basic income to whoever need as a startup...

For sure you won't have problem find user, the churn rate would be very low, and you will really change the word.

</comment><comment><USER75> it is quite funny and sad how many comments focus on how this system can be abused (and implicitly why it is inefficient). I think this is a bias from our programming/hacker culture where things (aka programs) tend to work with absolute. My experience in economic policy has more to do with relatives ( a trend vs another one, the percentage of free rider vs the gain for the whole population ) and tuning ( adding counter-balance and conditions as we get feedback from the terrain ).

</comment><comment><USER76> Having lived under a communist regime and also in the ghettos of NYC decades ago, I can tell you just how idiotic this is. But I guess there's no shortage of idiotic ideas when you are playing with other people's money.

<comment><USER77> What was it about living in NYC ghettos that suggests basic income is a bad idea?

<comment><USER76> Witnessed the total lack of motivation of people to do anything for themselves. It was the result of the policy at the time. When the policy changed, the behavior also changed. BMI provides no incentives for people to do the right thing, which is to work hard to better themselves. Quite the opposite. By removing any requirements, it enables unmotivated people to just sit on their ass. Nor does it discourage antisocial behavior. Just giving people free money doesn't do that in itself. All it does is set up an expectation of free money.

I believe the best way to spend the money is to help people who work hard to improve themselves, regardless of their income level. The money is given according to the impact of the money. So people with low income would benefit proportionally more because the before and after difference is larger percentage wise.

Edit: The thing that should redistributed is not wealth, but opportunity.

<comment><USER78> What about making higher education free, do you see benefits in doing that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> Collect taxes at high stakes -> Give money away for free -> Expect from people to be happier. Why governments just decrease some tax rates and let people to choose what to do with their own money?

<comment><USER80> Err, to help people who don't have any money?

<comment><USER79> You won't help people by addicting them to free money. Individuals should be independent, what if government change their mind and stops giving money away for free?

<comment><USER81> I dunno, what happens if your job stops giving you money?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> How about a guaranteed job rather then a free paycheck.

<comment><USER83> The main problems I see with the guaranteed job idea are that it presupposes a judgment about what types of work are inherently valuable (and does so at the cost of exploring the unknown) and it sounds a lot like a life of forced servitude for which the only rational was the original income inequality.

<comment><USER82> Forced servitude? you gotta be kidding... Let's look at the world as it is today: work for money. Is that slavery? No. Let's look at the world I'm proposing: guaranteed work for guaranteed money. Is that slavery? according to you, yes. If you're saying one is slavery and the other isn't, then I have to disagree.

>guaranteed job idea are that it presupposes a judgment about what types of work are inherently valuable (and does so at the cost of exploring the unknown)

Picking up the trash and cleaning up the neighborhood are unknown high risk ventures? Fixing pot-holes, washing graffiti off walls, planting trees, picking litter off the beach, helping the environment have no benefit to society? There are PLENTY of jobs that can be created that are not high risk ventures and can benefit all of society. I'm not proposing to start another NASA program.

Are you trying to say that paying people money to sit on their asses while entire cities have thousands of little problems is a more worthwhile venture then telling someone to help out the community in exchange for the same amount of money? Your reasoning being that we as human beings are not intelligent enough to make judgement about which types of work are more valuable?

Make a judgement on this: which is more valuable? Helping the community for money OR sitting on your ass for money?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> when it comes to utopian ideas i would prefer the right to work, to get a job to handing out cash to everybody.

my reason: handing out cash destroys the incentives to do better and improve...and not all necessary jobs are actual fun to do and others would surely completely vanish...

<comment><USER85> That's probably because you've found a job that you like. In reality however most people _hate_ their jobs and would rather do something else. This idea of living in a society where people need to do something they don't want in order to survive is a form of slavery.

<comment><USER84> > This idea of living in a society where people need to do something they > don't want in order to survive is a form of slavery.

i want do dispute this. it disregards and diminishes true slavery. having to support one self is not slavery but the normal way of living...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> I will just leave [https://mises.org/sites/default/files/For%20a%20New%20Libert...](https://mises.org/sites/default/files/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto_3.pdf) here, especially chapter 8.

</comment><comment><USER87> Basic income usually assumes money comes from nowhere, from "the state"... This experience is fun, but to be correct, those who find a job should in turn pay 1300/m... because the money cannot come from anywhere else than people.

Or you'll get VERY biased results.

Think of it: they could have tested the financing instead. 300 workers get to pay 1300€/m to the city. Who wants to be first?

<comment><USER87> France spends 600B/y in social spending. That's about 15k per citizen (minus children). 1/3 of the GDP.

So let's change it to a Basic Income of 1000+/m for everybody...

Many will loose a lot... because that's what France is already spending, for a lot less than 40ish M citizens.

I know downvoters would love this to work.

But think about it: today, the system cares for people with a handicap (for which 1000/m is not enough), for single families (for which 1000/m is not enough), etc... You just can't have everybody receive the same amount and remove help from those who need more...

So Basic Income will need much more money than what is already spent... just to take care of inequalities it will create.

If you think a country like France needs more redistribution (than 1/3 of the GDP), okay... but Basic Income will not achieve that.

Proponents often say BI will replace social spending. I think that's impossible.

If you just want more taxes, just say it. Be clear. BI is not clear at all, even if it looks easy to understand.

Source: [http://www.contrepoints.org/2013/09/30/140878-france- champio...](http://www.contrepoints.org/2013/09/30/140878-france-championne- du-monde-depenses-sociales)

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Basic income is a nice theory, but completely ignores the financing part. The money has to come from somewhere.

I would be really fine with receiving a basic income. From the social side I would support it. People can do what they like, like artists, developers, and creative people. May be there will be the next business opportunity, startup from that work. Yes, may be other people are lazy, that is like today.

There is a big BUT. Where does the money comes from to support this basic income? All those experiments, which are regarded as successful had the wonderful position, that the money came from outside. From the outside there was money put into the experiment, including the so successful experiment in Canada, where 75% of the money came from Ottawa, people, which where not part of the experiment.

I have not seen any experiment, the people taking part in the basic income have supported them-selfs, meaning the money for the basic income came from within this community. Only if the money can come from within the community them-self I would regard that experiment as successful.

<comment><USER89> In The Netherlands we are already spending that amount, so it doesn't need to come from anywhere. We spend well over 1000/mo on services for unemployed and poor people. We send social workers, health care all sorts of things. The general theory is that if we would supply these people with basic income they will live healthier lifestyles and not need so much care. In the long run it's thought basic income might even save The Netherlands money.

There's a lot of complaining about how it will make people 'sit around and eat ice cream' as if that's all the unemployed do. They've clearly not gone outside much. The unemployed drink a lot of beer, they do meth and they walk around aimlessly through the city and generally cause all kinds of damages and harm.

I live in the east of The Netherlands with pretty high unemployment, and it's already quite visible. But I've been to San Francisco and that's just horrible. I can't imagine how a rich person (and you have to be rich to live there) would want to live there amongst so many homeless and desperate poor people. Would it really be so bad to pay a bit of extra tax just so those people have a little less shitty lives and don't need to stroll around the SF center? It's not like they enjoy that.

Of course, it's not 100% certain that the basic income will solve that particular problem, but I feel it's worth a shot, so I'm happy Utrecht is trying it.

edit: Also let's remember that most people are simply decent. There's not much wrong with watching American Idol and eating some ice cream. If people do decide to not work under basic income (I don't think the majority will) they won't because they have a satisfying way to spend their time at home or wherever. Why is that a bad thing?

<comment><USER88> The problem is, all the calculation I have seen so far (by different members and friends of the Pirate Party Germany) included also the benefits for people with disabilities, and other illnesses. It included also the money currently used to support the public health care system and other social benefits.

If you remove all those also to finance basic income, then you are taking the money who really need it.

If you are saying - like some who support basic income - here is your basic income and now you need private health care and also all those other things of the safety net removed, than this is pure capitalism in the form of "take it or leave it".

I am more for the safety net. I am the one who also pays extra for public health care. I could easily switch to private health care and safe some big bucks monthly. No, because public health care is an important part for the society.

All the working financing models I have seen so far meant: less then 500 EUR as basic income, which does not work. Or they took the money from important parts of the social net.

May be there would one financing model: remove the costs for the military system. But that will never happen, I assume.

<comment><USER89> Ah no. Some benefits would become obsolete, The Netherlands already gives basic income to artists and people with work prohibiting disabilities for example. But it's obviously not a substitute for health insurance and other public health care systems.

The idea is that it would reduce the expense on health care services because people would become ill less often. Whether this is true remains to be tested on a larger scale, but I think some research has pointed to this being the case.

I think you are right, 500 euro would be extra spending money, not a basic income and quite possibly would have the reverse effect. It's why the basic income in Utrecht is 900, which is enough to live off as a single person.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The story of the Ping program (2001) - <AUTHOR> http://ftp.arl.army.mil/~mike/ping.html <comment><USER2> I remember reading that Amazon review of "The Story About Ping" shortly after it was published. Still a classic to this day. Excerpt: _...The Story About Ping has earned a place on my bookshelf, right between Stevens ' Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment, and my dog-eared copy of Dante's seminal work on MS Windows, Inferno. Who can read that passage on the Windows API ("Obscure, profound it was, and nebulous, So that by fixing on its depths my sight -- Nothing whatever I discerned therein."), without shaking their head with deep understanding. But I digress._

I still laugh reading it--truly satire at its finest.

<comment><USER3> > I remember reading that Amazon review of "The Story About Ping" shortly > after it was published...

I think you mean "shortly after it appeared on Amazon" since the book was old when I was a kid in the 1960s, pre Internet and pre Amazon.

(Or your commend extends the April 1 tradition, which is cool).

<comment><USER2> Sorry, I meant "shortly after the review was published," not the book. In fact "The Story About Ping" was a favorite children's book of mine when I was young (in the '70s) and I still have that copy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One thing I never knew about ping is that if you ping a broadcast address, then all hosts will respond! But for some operating systems (windows I think?), you need a packet capture to see this. It's been useful when probing around unknown networks.

I only found that out by reading the source code. It was part of a short-lived attempt to become a better hacker by familiarizing myself with the Linux source code, kernel and all. The more I learn, the more impossible it seems to ever master it all...

<comment><USER5> At one of my first corporate jobs about 20 years ago, I noticed that "nslookup x.y.z.255" actually resolved to a host. I tried to ping it, but got nothing...until I got a phone call from security about why a malicious broadcast ping came from my desktop machine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Read this some time ago - amazed at how something as ubiquitous as ping started so humbly. Very unfortunate that Muuss passed in 2000.

</comment><comment><USER7> Interesting that the 'Ping' link to Amazon.com is still working. I wonder if it will still be working in 100 years.

<comment><USER8> Well if Amazon is still around in 100 years, probably, as the link uses a ASIN [1] which can be converted to an EAN [2] or is equal to 10 digit IBANs

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

[2]: [http://erwinmayer.com/labs/asin2ean/index.php#EAN-to- ASIN](http://erwinmayer.com/labs/asin2ean/index.php#EAN-to-ASIN)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> A couple of previous discussions among [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=The%20story%20of%20the%20Ping%...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=The%20story%20of%20the%20Ping%20program&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0)

</comment><comment><USER10> Today's online ping program [http://pingspeedtest.com/](http://pingspeedtest.com/)

</comment><comment><USER11> The link seems to be down.

<comment><USER12> 2 hours after reading your comment that HN tells me was 2 hours ago in the hour that I read it, the links seems to be up. :)</comment></comment>


Software 'Developer' or 'Engineer': What's the Difference? - <AUTHOR> https://shecancode.io/blog/software-developer-or-engineer-whats-the-difference <comment><USER2> From personal experience as an software engineer who's been in the field for around 5 years now. I have interviewed over 15 people in the past year for each of these positions and hired around 7 of them. (Mid west, other locations may varry.)

Software developers code programs based on an engineer or architects specs. They normally come from a scale up coding facility. Don't not all think about future selves but how to get things done right now. Usually understand business goals pretty well.

Software engineers have a deep knowledge for common design patterns, probabilistic programming, and semi-fast prototyping. They also shine bright when data mining or artifical intelegence comes into play. Not normally very focused on the business goals, but strive to know more. Normally hired directly out of college or after 5+ years experience as a normal developer.

Software architects do little coding but are normally software engineers on steroids. They have a vast knowledge and understanding for how systems work together along with having around 15 years of SEexperience. Normally they have a good understanding and connection to the businesses success.</comment>


Introduction to Data Compression (2013) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~guyb/realworld/compression.pdf <comment><USER2> One may also want to refer to Data Compression Explained (2013) [1] as a comprehensive introduction to many higher-end compression algorithms.

[1] [http://mattmahoney.net/dc/dce.html](http://mattmahoney.net/dc/dce.html)</comment>


My GitHub Wishlist: Consolidate Request - <AUTHOR> http://www.koszek.com/blog/2015/11/23/my-github-wishlist-consolidate-request/#.Vlx-pUaYZxA.hackernews <comment><USER2> GitHub's fork management is lacking, but as it is now, forks are a symbol of popularity, so authors have no incentive to prune them. Plus it would be like saying "you're not a real contributor" to fans (which, while probably true, is still rude and not worth being a jerk about).

A simple first step would be to hide forks publicly that don't have any commits since they were forked. But I think some people fork things because they think it's like adding them to their resume (I can't understand it) and they wouldn't be happy.

The entire concept of "forked from X" is broken.

<comment><AUTHOR> I sometimes wonder why people fork my repos but don't make any modifications. My feeling is similar to yours, since I sometimes asked the job candidates during interview to show me some of their open source, and they showed cloned repos, but I would not find their commits there.

I'd only add changes for ... legitimate users: if I forked but forgot about it, just simplify my life and remove this repo automatically, if I requested so.

Plus if I want, I'd like to track changes in forks too.

<comment><USER3> Depending on the repo it is - mirroring. When I feel _the owner_ might be _pressured_ into removing their repo.

I have a thicker spine and can hide behind a veil of public anonymity. For example, if someone tells me to pull my forked repo because it offends them, they'll get a bird and told to sod off.

There's been quite a few _actually useful projects_ that have been pressured into shutting down - leaving only the forks to remain.</comment></comment></comment>


The rail line operated by children - happy-go-lucky http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20170502-the-rail-line-operated-by-children <comment><AUTHOR> It makes me feel a little nostalgic for the time of communism. They weren't religious but believed they could create a sort of heaven on earth. The reality was anything but, as we know. But this example is uplifting.</comment>


Ask HN: Tax implications of selling a website? - <AUTHOR>

I recently sold a website of mine for $90,000 through Flippa. I am a single member LLC (not taxed as a corporation) and the agreement, and payment, were between the buyer and the LLC.
Will this be taxed as ordinary income, or a capital gain?
In previous years, revenue from the site and expenses associated with running it have been reported as part of the gross sales and ordinary expenses of the business. I held this website and domain for more than one year. <comment><USER2> Obviously, you should talk to your accountant.

But: it seems to me that if the website was an asset of the LLC, then the sale of that asset would be viewed as income of the LLC on the corporate tax return, but since corporate taxes are on profits, that income may be offset (in whole or part) by various expenses.

</comment><comment><USER3> Should be long term capital gains since you had it for more then a year.</comment>


Samsung posts first ad for Galaxy Gear smartwatch [video] - <AUTHOR> http://thetechblock.com/samsung-posts-first-ad-galaxy-gear-smartwatch/

<comment><USER2> I'm waiting for a Dick Tracy themed ad. Halloween is coming up after all...

"Dick Tracy calling Joe Jitsu... calling Joe Jitsu"

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vUx...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vUxlc81K5RQ#t=28)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's frustrating that with OLED screens, we still deal with an ugly rectangular block attached to a wrist.

Why can't I have a sleek, circular screen?

This is more like a phone trying to be a watch than a watch that is actually amazing in it's own right

<comment><USER4> I think you've just predicted the shape of the iWatch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The idea of people walking around with cameras on their wrist makes me feel a little uneasy. Also this hinders the strap irreplaceable, in terms of customization. In terms of features, I'd replace a lot of them for a smaller form factor.

</comment><comment><USER6> Most tech ads seem to be in "show, don't tell" mode, which is probably a good approach. I have to say, I like the tack they took, simply explaining up front the features of the watch.

If the watch weren't so ugly and taking your phone out of your pocket so easy, I might even entertain buying one.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have a feeling when/if Apple make an iwatch, it will be first and foremost a really nice _watch_.

</comment><comment><USER8> $300 is a little steep for this. One can probably buy a Nexus 5 for a bit more.

<comment><USER9> I agree the price is a bit steep, but it's not (directly) something you can trade out like that. If you have a smartphone, you can't spend $300 on a nexus 5 and get a wearable device :)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Great commercial for a poor product.

</comment><comment><USER10> Looks uncomfortable. A smartring may be better suited for usability down the line.

</comment><comment><USER11> that looks _incredibly_ awkward to use.

<comment><USER12> Less awkward than the giant phones Samsung is making that the watch complements!</comment></comment>


The official fast food French fry power rankings - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/food/la-fo-french-fry-rankings-20190212-story.html <comment><USER2> That's just like, your opinion, man

</comment><comment><USER3> five guys FTW</comment>


RE: bindings and assignments (was: Re: continuations) (2003) - <AUTHOR> http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg04050.html <comment><AUTHOR> The whole thread is a thrilling read when you browse through the emails (and notice who wrote them).</comment>


RIP Iceweasel, 13 Nov 2006 – 10 Mar 2016 - <AUTHOR> https://glandium.org/blog/?p=3622 <comment><USER2> Nice to see this issue resolved.

The origin of the name:

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." \-- Matt Groening

</comment><comment><USER3> Good night, good weasel you have done well.</comment>


Boston Uber driver is accused in rape, kidnapping of customer - <AUTHOR> https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/12/17/uber-driver-accused-rape-kidnapping-customer/KYnOQczKFqggfbnri2FpGL/story.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I really don't understand why a person who knows their being tracked, knows their leaving a paper trail - still goes ahead and does something stupid like that.

<comment><USER2> People are irrational constantly.</comment></comment>


WireGuard Is Now Available on Apple iOS - <AUTHOR> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=WireGuard-On-iOS <comment><USER2> A more direct link might be: [https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2018-November/00...](https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2018-November/003526.html)</comment>


Classic Nintendo Games are NP-Hard - <AUTHOR> http://jeremykun.com/2012/03/22/nintendo-np-hard/

<comment><USER2> This is ridiculous. The real maps in these games didn't include even a hint of this kind of branching nonsense, so this kind of result says nothing about the actual difficulty of these games. And yet I sadly suspect "Zelda is NPC" is now going to become Internet folk wisdom. Groan. This paper is actively harmful if you ask me.

<comment><USER3> NP-completeness doesn't say anything about the difficulty of a specific instance of a given problem. It's trivial to construct CNF formulas that are solvable in polynomial time, for example.

An algorithm that is able to determine for _every_ Zelda level, in polynomial time, whether or not the exit can be reached from the start is something quite different. As shown in this paper, this would imply that the same algorithm can solve every instance of every problem in NP efficiently, a.k.a. answer the million dollar question.

A cleaner way of stating the results of the paper would be: "The puzzle mechanics of Zelda are NPC". This statement is harder to misread, though I wouldn't hold my breath given the extreme illiteracy concerning theoretical computer science prevalent even among programmers with a degree, never mind the internet.

<comment><USER4> Zelda is not simply a single instance of a static puzzle with a well-defined solution, it has code creating things dynamically. The title implies that the NP-complete problems are part of the actual gameplay. If you're only looking at mechanics you can pick nearly any game with _movement_ and pull out traveling salesman.

<comment><USER3> A straight up implementation of TSP (I assume you mean the decision variant) needs some kind of door that shuts with a timer.

How do you plan to encode arbitrary graphs? This poses a challenge for 2d platformers. In case of any 2d game, how do you encode non-planar graphs? You would need some kind of teleportation device.

A graph with few edges and large edge values will also be problematic if you plan on keeping your input size polynomial (in |V| and |E|), as you'd need a widget capable of encoding an arbitrarily long edge in constant map space.

Once you have solved all the above problems, feel free to write a paper about it ;).

<comment><USER4> Those features are nice but unnecessary. Just use planar graphs. Then you don't have to enforce single-visiting either. Limited scrolling will bound the longest edges but you don't need arbitrary edges. Only problems of a limited size will be able to fit in the limited memory of the game but that's still NP-complete over what does fit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> daniel-cussen When designing a game [I didn't build], I realized one of the most important ways of making the game indefinitely interestingly was to make it really hard to solve. This meant making it NP-hard on purpose.

<comment><USER5> This is helpful, but not sufficient. At the same time it has to be engaging and still look solvable i.e. the player must always have the feeling that "next time I'll do it!" or he will just stop playing.

One of the last bosses in Zelda is an interesting example. It starts as a dragon with three heads. One which is only killable by fire, the other by ice, the last one is invincible but tries to bite you. When the outer heads are dead the third head transforms to a fast moving snake which you have to hit at a specific point to damage. Each time you hit it it gets faster. Now, if you die something interesting happens: The next snake will start slower i.e. easier, so players should be able to kill more parts of it. This repeats itself every time you die. I noticed this when my mother (who loves Nintendo games, but isn't a really good player) died 20 times or so at the snake. Every time it was a bit slower and every time she was like "Well I did manage to kill one more part. THIS time I kill it!" and ran in again. In the end she killed the boss and was happy.

<comment><USER6> Zelda 2 is considered by so many weak-willed children of the 80s to be the "hardest" Zelda game, and yet it was not even included...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have a book called _Games, Puzzles, and Computation_ (Hearn & Demaine). It discusses and proves the hardness of various games and puzzles. Not the scale of AAA titles, though.

It's an interesting read. Not too mathy. They make clause gadgets in the same way as the example here for Super Mario Brothers and use that to prove things.

Edit: Realized the author of this book is actually one of the authors of this paper. So, yeah, if you found this article/paper interesting be sure to pick up the book.

<comment><USER8> Nice, I'll check it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's worth pointing out that even tic-tac-toe is PSPACE-complete. Here is a StackExchange question discussing the "solvability" of PSPACE vs NP: [http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/5323/are- pspace-...](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/5323/are-pspace- complete-problems-inherently-less-tractable-than-np-complete-prob)</comment>


Post-Mortems For Ten Products I've Built - <AUTHOR> http://blog.thirdyearmba.com/a-post-mortem-for-ten-projects

<comment><USER2> Does anyone else think that the author could perhaps put that wealth of experience into a startup that ISN'T aimed at the tech sector?

SaaS apps for the tech sector are ridiculously over saturated compared to every other sector, go and find a problem for a non-tech sector and apply a tech solution to it.

Personally i'm in the process of doing this. One is aimed at the tattoo industry and the other is aimed at the property market. There is WAAAAY less competition because all techys seem to do is build for their peers, go and build for someone in a different market that doesn't know they could have a tech solution to their problem, they will throw money at you for solving it.

If anyone wants a further discussion on it, email is in my profile or comment here.

<comment><USER3> I do agree with you, but I think it's a lot harder than you make it out to be.

The issue is domain-specific knowledge. I write tools for developers because I know how developers operate - I am one. Even though there may be a greater need, it would be hard for me to make software for doctors because I don't know what doctors want.

Which isn't to say it can't be done! In fact, it _should_ be done. It just takes a bit more research (of the you-cant-just-google-it kind) than most hackers are used to.

<comment><USER4> So what if it takes a bit more research or even a lot more research? If you want to go into business to make money by building domain-specific software, not knowing the intricacies is not only inexcusable but should very much be frowned upon as downright lazy.

<comment><USER5> Most startups fail because the serial entrepreneur build stuff they think people need but would never use themselves. It's not as easy as just researching what potential customers may need. If YOU are not that potential customer, then you won't have the intuition to make something better than the competition when they pop up. Also, if YOU're not the target customer, your passion for the project will fade way before you actually make money from it.

The above is true for both projects large and small. I still think Google+ will ultimately fail b/c its top level execs don't use the platform and therefore won't have any insights about where to take it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, it's great to see a bunch of very candid assessments of failure. You don't get a glimpse of failure very often often, especially for really early stage stuff, so it's hard to learn from the mistakes other people make. Appreciate the author for putting themselves out there like this.

Reasons for failure broken down by project: 1) No traction/user retetion/no monetization potential 2) Weren't able to break into the existing market 3) Sales problem for an engineering focused team 4) Market opportunity too small 5) Disagreements in the founding team 6) Disagreements in the founding team 7) Market opportunity too small 8) Disagreements in the founding team 9) Bad cofounder 10) Bad cofounder

Grouped by reason for failure:

-5 cofounder problems

-3 no traction

-2 traction, but market was too small

Startups are rough.

<comment><USER7> The exact timeline for all the projects isn't clear, but it hints of a relatively short period, say 3 years?

10 (make that 11) projects in 3 years seems like a high number to me. Yes, lessons can be learned by failure, and test pivoting early is good if needed, but if you're failing this often, and (disturbingly) for the same reasons then there surely must be a time to step back and take some time to do things differently.

The disagreements with founders being repeated so often is a sign of something. I realize that it may indeed be "the other guy" in all cases, but sooner or later folk will stay wondering if it's you. At best, your ability to select partners comes into question.

There must also be a balance between this frantic skipping from one project to another (6 months per project?) and putting in the time to get a product done right. It _feels_ like you're looking for an overnight smash hit, or you bail quickly. The conference project felt especially like this. You narrowed the market to a tiny segment, the segment incidentally that had the least motivation to pay anything, then opted not to follow through on the markets that are more likely to pay. It's like you built a job site, focused on people who already had high paying gigs, rather than people out of work desperate for jobs, or employers disparate for employees.

I think the article was really interesting, and I think an excellent learning experience for others - thank you for being honest enough to post it. I think you have learnt some lessons along the way, and hopefully these comments will make the xperience more valuable to you. I wish you all the best with finding the one-true-project you want to commit to long-term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You've detailed why those startups failed, but I don't think you've touched on whether you've learned anything from your failures. Maybe the time period went by too fast but it seems like you kept making the same mistakes over and over again:

1\. Not properly validating your ideas.

2\. Working with other people with ADD.

3\. Not marketing the idea, or hiring someone with marketing knowledge to push the ideas out.

4\. Not building something you'd actually use and pay for yourself.

Did I miss anything?

Side note, I know tons of hackers that just build stuff for fun and are always "just getting by" with their ideas when partnering with a marketing or social media person would have done wonders for the startup. I never understood why they wouldn't just get the proper support system in place before drowning themselves in code (even when this step has been s-p-e-l-l-e-d out for them as a necessary step. Is the whole point just to code stuff and to solve unique problems they haven't solved before? I figured most hackers like to just crawl into a hole and code and not have to worry about anything else about the business - if that's the case, why not just stick w/ a 9-5 job?

<comment><USER8> I think a lot of hackers actually subconsciously sabotage projects when they've done the interesting coding. I think I detect a whiff of that in this article.

<comment><USER5> LOL - I'm convinced this is why so many of Google's lab stuff are stuck in beta. The cool parts have been built but nobody wants to finish the last 20% that takes up 80% of the time. =)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Lack of market research and validation is a very common reason for B2B software business failure. And for good reason - hardcore market research can be tedious, boring, frustrating, and potentially highly disappointing.

What if the market's wants/desires cannot be solved with technology? Perhaps your prospect's deepest need is simply information about how to do their job better with existing technology. In this scenario, as an industry outsider, you are not even remotely capable of meeting their needs, so you shouldn't write even 1 line of code without talking to dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of prospects.

Why bother making an app to help tattoo shops schedule customer appointments unless you have surveyed hundreds of tattoo shop owners? Perhaps their biggest need is wowing their customers with an Ipad version of their tattoo library. But you wouldn't know this unless you or someone on your team talked to them! To me, this is what people like Steve Blank mean when they say 'get out of the building'. Survey, survey, survey!

</comment><comment><USER10> The first item on his list was a todo list. It's interesting because I once had (what I thought at least) was this killer idea for a personal task management app.

I was psyched about it until I went and pitched it to a friend of mine and he was like "It's a todo list. That is the equivalent of 'Hello World!' for product ideas. Don't do it."

Looking back, he was so right. I think every programmer I know has come up with an idea for a new spin on the todo list at some point.

</comment><comment><USER11> I like the post a lot. Looks like Dana tried a lot and learnt a lot from what was not working for him.

I especially like the cultural side of trying, folding gracefully (if need be), learning and re-trying.

Here in Italy, you can't just do that. Even a graceful fold marks you as a lifetime failure, it is a sort of social stigma.

I wonder how this works in other parts of the world, in and outside US.

<comment><USER12> Are you sure that's how entrepreneurs and investors think in Italy?

I strongly suspect that if you genuinely tried hard in a business that ultimately failed, and truly learned some difficult lessons then people will give you another chance.

For most of us, failure is a milestone on the road to success.

<comment><USER11> I have been an entrepreneur for five years.

I decided to close the business and get hired because the risk to reward ratio was too skewed on the risk side.

According to what I have seen happening to fellow entrepreneurs, when they did run into trouble they did not get broken but neither had second chances.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> One theme across most of those stories is that the author and his team went out and built something before validating their ideas. Actually building a product is perhaps the HEAVIEST way to validate whether there's a market for the idea. Spend more time upfront validating the idea... make a fake version of the product, create some landing page that people can sign up for... anything to avoid going out and building before you know you're on to something.

It's okay to mess around with products in your spare time if it's just 'tinkering', but if you're trying to do the startup game for real, then lower investment upfront in ideas is critical to finding one that works.

<comment><USER9> I have heard many moderately and wildly successful entrepreneurs and marketers including Seth Godin, Tim Ferris, Steve Blank, and Eric Ries all mention some variation of "prove your market first by prototyping your solution and getting feedback from the market BEFORE writing a single line of code".

The market validation process is relatively obvious and straightforward to execute, but it's STILL hard to build a successful business around a compelling solution for a validated market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> 5) Wishlist - is Pinterest alerting people to products they've pinned that have subsequently gone down in price? If not Pinterest, has someone built an extension/plugin/third-party site that does this?

8) About/Team/Press - I had a side-project (not trivial to monetise) idea noted down that was slightly similar to this: maintaining beer pages for pubs/clubs/restaurants by mobile. Usually a pub will put up a crappy list of beers they have on tap or by bottle. Looking up any more info would be a pain. But if they embedded a script/iframe from said side-project, they could simply login from their phone and activate/deactivate to show the right beers, and the side-project site would serve up labels, descriptions, origin, alc%, etc. Venues could optionally list prices, mark specials or flag beers as available on tap/bottle/both.

The insanely large catalogue for wine would make this a lot harder to do in that market. (BTW, if you know of a way to get a database of all wine and decent bottle shots, let me know because I have a solid idea on the shelf that would work with that sort of information.)

</comment><comment><USER15> wow that is a long list! what time period are we talking here? Some of the ideas seem like they would need at least 12 months if not more to successfully bring to market. Are you sure you aren't jumping to the next big thing before giving the last a good go?

<comment><USER16> It seems like a lot of the reasons for jumping ship were because there was no market for the product. Maybe it's just that he's making his brainstorming and market research phase _sound_ like a product when it isn't yet, but it's strange to me that one would get so far as a usable product, funding, etc for a something that they hadn't yet done an ounce of market research for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Great article. As a super techy guy something which really sticks out for me (and which has been confirmed by my day-job recently) is how key marketing seems to be. You can have the crappiest product but with the right sales team its possible to get anybody to buy it.

</comment><comment><USER18> several thoughts as i was reading the article, if you look at jason calacanis' show "this week in startups", the intro to his show has a quote that says something along the lines of "think about your biggest idea and then go for it full speed!" that one resonates the most with me, i'm sure that quote was pulled from somewhere else. anyway, my point is that i've been and am in the same boat as i have a shedload of ideas, implement some of them half baked (i.e. no marketing/sales follow through), and then move on to others for various reasons. but when i read your article, it made me think about this because it seems that lots of your projects either you or your partner lost motivation, e.g. wanted to work on something else.

will/motivation to me is one of the most important things when choosing an idea to execute. of course business model is important, but if you have an excellent business model and you are only 80% interested, then chances are you will fail.

ideas are a dime a dozen, put your efforts into the one that you feel most passionate about from a personal level. not to say that you wasted time on any of the projects because i'm sure you gained a lot of experience, but focus that energy on the one thing and you'll go a lot farther than all of the 10+ combined :)

<comment><USER19> If I'm passionate about stuff that won't bring money for sure and there is an idea that I hate but feel it could be profitable, which way shall I choose to build a startup in your opinion?

It's easy to pick up to be passionate when doing a side project, and it's a completely different thing when you think about "going head-on" and need to pay the bills.

And in real life the choices are more subtle and have more dimensions.</comment></comment>