Friday, June 26, 2015

Q&A - 26/6

The Atlantic

Time-use surveys show that jobless prime-age people dedicate some of the time once spent working to cleaning and childcare. But men in particular devote most of their free time to leisure, the lion’s share of which is spent watching television, browsing the Internet, and sleeping [..]

Where are these "surveys"?

The author later makes some vague statements about basic income possibly causing tax revenue loss for the government. If this said "survey" is correct, it would have looked at jobless people, not at subjects who were receiving basic income. There is a difference.

The effects of basic income was researched throughly, based on experiments in Canada and US. The results are published by Hum, Derek, and Simpson, Wayne. No adverse effects have been found in terms of labor.

In other parts of the article the author contradicts himself - in one paragraph he talks about "jobless watching TV" then he talks about "having a job being necessary for dignity". So these jobless people are watching bunch of TV, but are very sad about it? It makes no sense.

The culture code for work in US is WHO YOU ARE, code for money is PROOF (for having made it) [1]. So no matter what people are given, in order to get a better status, exercise their identity, people will work on something. The good part is they will be able to take more risks because of the social net. We will have more entrepreneurs, not less. Currently entrepreneurship in US is at 1 out of 10. This is higher than Europe, sure, but why can't this number be 3 out of 10? Why not 10 out of 10?

"But will they work on useful stuff?". Here is a counter-question: are ppl working on useful stuff now? Should pleathora of statisticians, machine learning experts focus on maximixing ad clicks on a fucking web page or an app? There is an insane amount of talent wasted, right now, on such projects.

Don't even get me started on falling birthrates, working women not having enough children. When both or single parents are forced to work full-time for a reasonable lifestyle, can they be blamed for having less kids? Or no kids? It seems to me, what we propose is needed to even maintain the genetic diversity of humanity. MBTI Guardians (%40 of the population) will always marry, they are not the focus here, these are down-to-earth, by-the-book, logistics oriented folk, they'll marry on time, settle down on time, have their 2.5 kids and their house, and live happily everafter. The focus is on SP, NF, NT types representing %60 of the population.

Closing note: I am sure there is a sweet spot of basic income level that will cover the basics, food, shelter, healtcare, but it will still compel people trying to get more money (because they'll want PROOF). This is not rocket science. It is what needs to be done so more people work on rocket science.


[Paraphrasing] The economy contracted in Q1 2015, reaching 3% GDP growth seems unlikely.


Our TfC prediction already took GDP growth 2% as 2016 prez prediction, and Bam's net popularity at 0 -- now it is -3. But these are small changes, GDP 2 or 3, net popularity 0 or -3, it doesn't change the final prediction much. If net popularity was at Clinton levels, %19.5 in 2000, that would make a difference. But at least it is not at -37%, that is, Bush territory. Hillary's predicted popular vote win  is still between 43% and 52% (above %50 means sure win); she has brand recognition on her side, she can win.


Bitch is the new black.

Ha ha

This line was from 2008, but still good.


[1] The codes are from Clotaire Rapaille's research, this is hard-core science, Rapaille has a process, the results are falsifiable, and used by the researcher himself to make lots of $$$ in the private sector.

Q&A - 21/5

Question How do you empirically prove interest rates do not cause increase or decrease in GDP growth? There is a test for that Data ,...