3 ms·

Basic income could absolutely create a better minimum for the poor (and everyone, really) if it replaces the current entitlement disaster. It would most likely

Basic income could absolutely create a better minimum for the poor (and everyone, really) if it replaces the current entitlement disaster. It would most likely be cheaper (edit: it might not be, depends on the details) and become much more efficient considering you're sending a cheque that would ideally have no conditions associated with it. When large quantities of manual labor jobs or easily automated jobs are replaced, basic income, I think, would push that class of folks to a livable standard. Not much, but just enough. You'll have more people transitioning off the streets and into normal lives. (Even as a libertarian, I say this, which at first, might be at odds with the philosophy but there are good arguments that make it perfectly compatible.)

tempestn 11y ago
Yes, exactly. A basic income would both make sense for the ideal future we're trying to create (but which the parent correctly states is a long way off) and also for many of the issues of the present. I'm personally pretty skeptical that it would indeed cost less than what we have. (I'm in Canada, but basically the same arguments apply.) I expect there would have to be a significant tax hike, which could be structured so that it cancels out the basic income somewhere in the middle class range, leaving the poor better off and the wealthy nominally paying more. However, it could also achieve so much more than the current minimally effective (if that) safety nets. People would not be forced to take a job just to survive. They could instead pursue work that they enjoy, and most likely end up making a greater contribution to society. This would apply for the middle class as well. Rather than being so focused on compensation, people would have more freedom to pursue the job that gives them maximum satisfaction, again benefiting all of society. Sure, some few would just milk the system, but it's ingrained in human nature both to produce something of value and to try to better one's state in life, so I expect that would be the minority. Even though I wouldn't directly benefit financially from a system like that, I would love to see it seriously explored.
- TheHydroImpulse 11y ago
  Absolutely! (I also live in Canada) It might be more expensive than the status-quo. It depends on the details of such a system. To add to your point about people working not to survive but to thrive: re-education, or education would be a more realistic possibility. Currently, going back to school at 30 or 40 years old when you've held low wage jobs is really hard. A family member of mine, after a divorce that ended her up with nothing, was able to raise her 6 kids, upgrade her high school and get a university degree, all without a job. This is simply not possible with the safety nets currently available (welfare helped but definitely wasn't enough). This was only possible because of her family taking a second mortgage to buy a house that she "rented" and a line of credit for food and necessities. The amount of people that will have to be re-educated to find a job will only increase. This would only be a positive for the workforce.
  - 1971genocide 11y ago
    I agree that the status-quo is terrible. Here in the UK the welfare state has gone out of control. No one is arguing for people to be homeless and its not the fault of the working class. It lies squarely on the fault of the govt. I notice houses falling apart at the same time 23 year old are on welfare. I am sympathic towards disabled people but a lot of disabled people could help run shops and participate in white collar work. Heck - There is a massive demand for teaching english to Africans and Chinese. My point is there is no shortage of work. Right now not only are a huge percentage of adults on welfare due to demographics reasons - average age is higher. But adults with perfectly good education are also on welfare. How is that possible ? It shows a massive loss of potential in society. And its going to get worse as more people enter old age and are unable to work for any job. I think a lot of people in the west are completely oblivious to the fact that so much labour is needed to produce their clothes, iphones, fossil fuels, coffee, . . Just because you cannot see it doesn't mean some person in rural china is not picking tea for you. And because of deflation ppl complain that its "too expensive to hire in canada/england/US" The fact is the world price point has shifted and money supply hasn't been keeping up. Almost everything is cheaper due to the force of the globalization economy. Not politically but economically. This should have resulted an aggressive move towards a more unified form of global governance, but there wasn't enough political will. Imagine when a english major graduates in the States they get to travel to africa to teach thousand of kids english. Or labour moving to Europe to transform the infrastructure and install solar panels. Or a concession amoung europeans and africans to solarize the sahara and provide clean energy for europe and africa. The only country that is able to do this ( limited form ) is china in 2015. But I hope more countries can work to solve the big problems of humanity.

tempestn 11y ago

Yes, exactly. A basic income would both make sense for the ideal future we're trying to create (but which the parent correctly states is a long way off) and also for many of the issues of the present. I'm personally pretty skeptical that it would indeed cost less than what we have. (I'm in Canada, but basically the same arguments apply.) I expect there would have to be a significant tax hike, which could be structured so that it cancels out the basic income somewhere in the middle class range, leaving the poor better off and the wealthy nominally paying more. However, it could also achieve so much more than the current minimally effective (if that) safety nets. People would not be forced to take a job just to survive. They could instead pursue work that they enjoy, and most likely end up making a greater contribution to society. This would apply for the middle class as well. Rather than being so focused on compensation, people would have more freedom to pursue the job that gives them maximum satisfaction, again benefiting all of society. Sure, some few would just milk the system, but it's ingrained in human nature both to produce something of value and to try to better one's state in life, so I expect that would be the minority. Even though I wouldn't directly benefit financially from a system like that, I would love to see it seriously explored.

TheHydroImpulse 11y ago
Absolutely! (I also live in Canada) It might be more expensive than the status-quo. It depends on the details of such a system. To add to your point about people working not to survive but to thrive: re-education, or education would be a more realistic possibility. Currently, going back to school at 30 or 40 years old when you've held low wage jobs is really hard. A family member of mine, after a divorce that ended her up with nothing, was able to raise her 6 kids, upgrade her high school and get a university degree, all without a job. This is simply not possible with the safety nets currently available (welfare helped but definitely wasn't enough). This was only possible because of her family taking a second mortgage to buy a house that she "rented" and a line of credit for food and necessities. The amount of people that will have to be re-educated to find a job will only increase. This would only be a positive for the workforce.
- 1971genocide 11y ago
  I agree that the status-quo is terrible. Here in the UK the welfare state has gone out of control. No one is arguing for people to be homeless and its not the fault of the working class. It lies squarely on the fault of the govt. I notice houses falling apart at the same time 23 year old are on welfare. I am sympathic towards disabled people but a lot of disabled people could help run shops and participate in white collar work. Heck - There is a massive demand for teaching english to Africans and Chinese. My point is there is no shortage of work. Right now not only are a huge percentage of adults on welfare due to demographics reasons - average age is higher. But adults with perfectly good education are also on welfare. How is that possible ? It shows a massive loss of potential in society. And its going to get worse as more people enter old age and are unable to work for any job. I think a lot of people in the west are completely oblivious to the fact that so much labour is needed to produce their clothes, iphones, fossil fuels, coffee, . . Just because you cannot see it doesn't mean some person in rural china is not picking tea for you. And because of deflation ppl complain that its "too expensive to hire in canada/england/US" The fact is the world price point has shifted and money supply hasn't been keeping up. Almost everything is cheaper due to the force of the globalization economy. Not politically but economically. This should have resulted an aggressive move towards a more unified form of global governance, but there wasn't enough political will. Imagine when a english major graduates in the States they get to travel to africa to teach thousand of kids english. Or labour moving to Europe to transform the infrastructure and install solar panels. Or a concession amoung europeans and africans to solarize the sahara and provide clean energy for europe and africa. The only country that is able to do this ( limited form ) is china in 2015. But I hope more countries can work to solve the big problems of humanity.