3 ms·

I think basic income solves one of two important problems. The problem it doesn't solve is what people will do with their time. I'd like to see a requirement th

by gpsx 11y ago

I think basic income solves one of two important problems. The problem it doesn't solve is what people will do with their time. I'd like to see a requirement that everyone work. The exact definition of work would have to be determined along with a way of measuring/enforcing it. This might not be easy. There is always more work that can be done. One source of work could be a government website that can provide jobs for people that don't have them, with pay for the work just being the basic income - workfare.gov.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> The problem it doesn't solve is what people will do with their time. How is this a problem? Don't people solve that individually, by doing what has the most utility for themselves? > I'd like to see a requirement that everyone work. Either (1) you don't need this, because everyone will have work available that pays something that they are willing to accept for their time, or (2) such a requirement is mandated involuntary servitude. In neither case does the requirement seem desirable. > One source of work could be a government website that can provide jobs for people that don't have them, with pay for the work just being the basic income - workfare.gov. If basic income is conditioned on doing qualifying work, its fundamentally different from the unconditional basic income generally proposed, and instantly avoids the advantages flowing from the unconditional part of the proposal.
WorldMaker 11y ago
«The problem it doesn't solve is what people will do with their time.» What would you do with your time if you weren't required to work for your living? I'd spend more time writing fiction and videogames, personally. Others want to act, write poetry, create art, perform music, romance, raise kids, the list extends out to so many extremes of human expression and desire. I'd probably read more books and play more videogames and attend more concerts, too. There would certainly be a lot more Netflix binging, in general. But the problem here is that people see such culture (leisure) as sinful/wasteful, rather than a goal, a possibly better human existence. If more people have leisure time, so what? At some point we have to admit to ourselves (as this is deep in the American DNA at this point) that the Puritans were wrong and backbreaking labor is not the end all/be all of human experience. It's not a more "pure" life to work ourselves to death and it's not "guilty" or "irrational" or "wasteful" to balance some pleasure and leisure into one's life. People should not have to "earn" a right to the bottom rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy: they should have food, shelter, safety, health. Why should "work" be an entry bar to claiming one's basic rights as a human being in a caring society? The concept of "basic income" is that everyone gets it, regardless of qualification. If people want to earn income over and above that, they are welcome to: there will still be startups and companies and projects that will (need to) pay for labor. If people want to live on the bare minimum that "basic income" provides for them and spend the rest of their life in relative leisure, then let them. What harm does that do to society? If companies have such a great need for that extra labor they would be missing they can pay the value that that loss of leisure is actually worth and lure the "lazy" out of leisure through enough incentive. If someone tries to leave beyond their means and uses "basic income" as a crutch they'll quickly find themselves dealing with the same disincentives that poor people already face: bad credit, collections agency, the prison-industrial complex. Already productivity statistics are telling us that there are fewer jobs needed than people that exist in this country, and with increasing automation this trend will only get worse. We can't enforce 100% employment, and why should we? Instead, we need a solution for a (much) less than 100% employment world and punishing people with crippling poverty and debt seems like a far less useful solution than whining that maybe some people might find a way to take their basic income, find some shelter and a lifestyle that is sustainable under it, and binge watch Netflix for the rest of their lives without ever "working a job". What you perceive as a problem here is a failed assumption: the Puritan belief that people only live meaningful (sinless) lives if they devote themselves to some hateful job and work to earn their way to a better life (heaven for the Puritans; a leisure-full retirement if they are lucky after putting their nose to the grindstone, in the case of the classic American middle class propaganda). Sorry for the long rant here, but it's just something that I think we have a hard time talking about in America precisely because we've got a bundle of culturally foundational DNA that makes it tough to talk about without first attacking those foundational assumptions. Hopefully, maybe this helps explain what you are missing in the concept?
- gpsx 11y ago
  I also would have no problem figuring out what to do with my time. I would pretty much do the same thing I do today, both at work and for my hobbies. My hobbies of the last several years have ranged from triathlons, auto racing, ballroom dancing, yoga and cooking. But not everyone is like you or I. There are people who would choose to do something less constructive. The problem comes when people choose to do something destructive. This is potentially a real problem. I wish I had references related to this topic but I don't. I also wouldn't have a problem with people taking their basic income but not contributing to society. I don't worry that everyone would be lazy. I agree we would still have startups and companies and advancement of knowledge. The idea of basic income sounds good but would it really work in practice? This is what needs to be discussed. I am try to raise a potential problem as to why it might not work. (I am not the only one who has suggested this problem.) From a more practical point of view, there is also the issue of how such a program could ever be adopted. This is the unfortunate reality of American politics. The idea of workfare could be something that the conservative half of the country also supports. I am in agreement with you about wanting people to have a fulfilling life outside of work. The definition of "work" would have to allow for people to live a fulfilling life and not be slaves.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > There are people who would choose to do something less constructive. The problem comes when people choose to do something destructive. We have systems in society for dealing with people choosing to do something destructive; the idea that this is a problem that needs solved with BI needs, I think, more elaboration. > The idea of basic income sounds good but would it really work in practice? That question gets asked a lot, but no one really seems clear what the mean by "work". > I am try to raise a potential problem as to why it might not work. What, specifically, is the problem you are trying to raise? > From a more practical point of view, there is also the issue of how such a program could ever be adopted. The public process of deliberating on the features of a system that can work is the same process of building the foundation for it to be adopted. > The idea of workfare could be something that the conservative half of the country also supports. Many of the proponents of UBI are from the conservative half of the country, and "workfare" addresses none of the things that UBI proposes to improve compared to the current system.

by gpsx 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> The problem it doesn't solve is what people will do with their time. How is this a problem? Don't people solve that individually, by doing what has the most utility for themselves? > I'd like to see a requirement that everyone work. Either (1) you don't need this, because everyone will have work available that pays something that they are willing to accept for their time, or (2) such a requirement is mandated involuntary servitude. In neither case does the requirement seem desirable. > One source of work could be a government website that can provide jobs for people that don't have them, with pay for the work just being the basic income - workfare.gov. If basic income is conditioned on doing qualifying work, its fundamentally different from the unconditional basic income generally proposed, and instantly avoids the advantages flowing from the unconditional part of the proposal.

WorldMaker 11y ago

«The problem it doesn't solve is what people will do with their time.» What would you do with your time if you weren't required to work for your living? I'd spend more time writing fiction and videogames, personally. Others want to act, write poetry, create art, perform music, romance, raise kids, the list extends out to so many extremes of human expression and desire. I'd probably read more books and play more videogames and attend more concerts, too. There would certainly be a lot more Netflix binging, in general. But the problem here is that people see such culture (leisure) as sinful/wasteful, rather than a goal, a possibly better human existence. If more people have leisure time, so what? At some point we have to admit to ourselves (as this is deep in the American DNA at this point) that the Puritans were wrong and backbreaking labor is not the end all/be all of human experience. It's not a more "pure" life to work ourselves to death and it's not "guilty" or "irrational" or "wasteful" to balance some pleasure and leisure into one's life. People should not have to "earn" a right to the bottom rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy: they should have food, shelter, safety, health. Why should "work" be an entry bar to claiming one's basic rights as a human being in a caring society? The concept of "basic income" is that everyone gets it, regardless of qualification. If people want to earn income over and above that, they are welcome to: there will still be startups and companies and projects that will (need to) pay for labor. If people want to live on the bare minimum that "basic income" provides for them and spend the rest of their life in relative leisure, then let them. What harm does that do to society? If companies have such a great need for that extra labor they would be missing they can pay the value that that loss of leisure is actually worth and lure the "lazy" out of leisure through enough incentive. If someone tries to leave beyond their means and uses "basic income" as a crutch they'll quickly find themselves dealing with the same disincentives that poor people already face: bad credit, collections agency, the prison-industrial complex. Already productivity statistics are telling us that there are fewer jobs needed than people that exist in this country, and with increasing automation this trend will only get worse. We can't enforce 100% employment, and why should we? Instead, we need a solution for a (much) less than 100% employment world and punishing people with crippling poverty and debt seems like a far less useful solution than whining that maybe some people might find a way to take their basic income, find some shelter and a lifestyle that is sustainable under it, and binge watch Netflix for the rest of their lives without ever "working a job". What you perceive as a problem here is a failed assumption: the Puritan belief that people only live meaningful (sinless) lives if they devote themselves to some hateful job and work to earn their way to a better life (heaven for the Puritans; a leisure-full retirement if they are lucky after putting their nose to the grindstone, in the case of the classic American middle class propaganda). Sorry for the long rant here, but it's just something that I think we have a hard time talking about in America precisely because we've got a bundle of culturally foundational DNA that makes it tough to talk about without first attacking those foundational assumptions. Hopefully, maybe this helps explain what you are missing in the concept?

gpsx 11y ago
I also would have no problem figuring out what to do with my time. I would pretty much do the same thing I do today, both at work and for my hobbies. My hobbies of the last several years have ranged from triathlons, auto racing, ballroom dancing, yoga and cooking. But not everyone is like you or I. There are people who would choose to do something less constructive. The problem comes when people choose to do something destructive. This is potentially a real problem. I wish I had references related to this topic but I don't. I also wouldn't have a problem with people taking their basic income but not contributing to society. I don't worry that everyone would be lazy. I agree we would still have startups and companies and advancement of knowledge. The idea of basic income sounds good but would it really work in practice? This is what needs to be discussed. I am try to raise a potential problem as to why it might not work. (I am not the only one who has suggested this problem.) From a more practical point of view, there is also the issue of how such a program could ever be adopted. This is the unfortunate reality of American politics. The idea of workfare could be something that the conservative half of the country also supports. I am in agreement with you about wanting people to have a fulfilling life outside of work. The definition of "work" would have to allow for people to live a fulfilling life and not be slaves.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > There are people who would choose to do something less constructive. The problem comes when people choose to do something destructive. We have systems in society for dealing with people choosing to do something destructive; the idea that this is a problem that needs solved with BI needs, I think, more elaboration. > The idea of basic income sounds good but would it really work in practice? That question gets asked a lot, but no one really seems clear what the mean by "work". > I am try to raise a potential problem as to why it might not work. What, specifically, is the problem you are trying to raise? > From a more practical point of view, there is also the issue of how such a program could ever be adopted. The public process of deliberating on the features of a system that can work is the same process of building the foundation for it to be adopted. > The idea of workfare could be something that the conservative half of the country also supports. Many of the proponents of UBI are from the conservative half of the country, and "workfare" addresses none of the things that UBI proposes to improve compared to the current system.