News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:What the spread of universal basic-income schemes says ab... by 0cf8612b2e1e on Monday January 23, 2023 @01:05AM (#34486005)
Well, it is predicated on the idea that more money is always better. Most of the assistance programs provide enough to stay alive with limited funds for anything else. Presumably, any job worth working is going to offer compensation significantly better than remaining idle and collecting checks. That is, in the provided pathological example, I would suggest the worker not take that job opportunity.

It is more about ensuring that a person receiving assistance can work as much as they are able without any concerns. Anything less than a totally smooth off-ramp to financial assistance is bound to create scenarios where the optimal strategy for a worker is limit their maximum compensation below the arbitrary financial cliff.

Re:What the spread of universal basic-income schemes says ab... by chongli on Monday January 23, 2023 @01:25AM (#34486101)
There's another issue though: people on disability payments often have disabilities that prevent them from working full-time. So in order for them to climb over the financial cliff they've got to find a part-time job that pays a lot more than what they receive from the government. That's a much more difficult obstacle and it keeps people from otherwise taking a low-paying, non-physically-taxing part-time job to earn a bit of extra income. It makes no economic sense.
Re:What the spread of universal basic-income schemes says ab... by nullish_signal on Monday January 23, 2023 @02:24AM (#34486353)
>So in order for them to climb over the financial cliff they've got to find a part-time job that pays a lot more than what they receive from the government. >that pays a lot more The ideal is, without "Welfare Cliffs", they could find work that pays a BIT more, and lose a SLIVER of welfare, thus making the effort still worth it.