6 ms·

Like most basic income proponents, this article conveniently forgets the actual problem with basic income: it hurts immigration. Granted, with the amount of peo

Like most basic income proponents, this article conveniently forgets the actual problem with basic income: it hurts immigration. Granted, with the amount of people against immigration maybe it would actually help these arguments, but the truth is that such a plan can be potentially devastating to the long term health of the economy (if you know, these dreams of the end of scarcity don't pan out). The basic problem here is that these plans mis-consider the US as an isolated economy. If you have basic income, what is the policy on immigrants? The options appear to be: 1. Open immigration and same benefits to everyone. Maybe you can argue that we can afford basic income for current US citizens, I think it would be a stretch for anyone to argue that we could afford it for anyone that comes into our borders, and thus... 2. Get even more hard line against immigration. America is already pretty anti-immigration, just wait how opinions turn when anyone inside gets a guaranteed income. As usual, anti-immigration laws will hurt the next round of brilliant foreigners from coming to the US and bringing their great ideas and prosperity here. Its already the case that we're increasingly lending foreigners our education system and then not letting them stay and thus exporting that knowledge and prosperity. 3. Make basic income only available to US citizens. Congratulations, we have now fully devolved into a classist society, where an 18 year old that wants to "figure things out" will be granted a monthly salary, but an immigrant who has 3 kids won't. To make matters worse, they probably WILL pay taxes on their income that will go for said basic income. Arguably we have this partially now, but since its services its not as unfair as giving a check to someone by birthright while the other person has to labor. For all the talk of automation the reality on the streets today is that immigrants largely do our back braking labor, and if you now "buy out" all Americans from menial jobs, you are cementing that these tasks are for outsiders. Milton Friedman put it best: you can't have open immigration and a welfare state. We already see the effects of our current system hurting immigration. These proposals always have the ring of "post history" to them: we've figured out supply, now its time to just find out how to split up the goods. I think they greatly underestimate that the world economy is still not figured out and we could soon find the US behind other states.

Retra 11y ago
"Make basic income only available to US citizens. Congratulations, we have now fully devolved into a classist society" Do you honestly think that this is a fair description of the consequences of that course of action? There are plenty of things only available to US citizens. Voting. Running for office. Any kind of federal assistance. Military enrollment. Diplomatic protections. I really don't see how this option is anything different from what we already have. It would be federal assistance, after all, and non-citizens already don't get that.
- tolmasky 11y ago
  As I stated in my own comment, we already have a form of this today, so clearly I do think it is similar to our current system. However, I think that a defining differentiator is that a basic income can assist in luxury assistance beyond pure help. That is to say, if we offer purely assistive programs that are arguably necessary to a subset of the population (such as healthcare), it is clearly fundamentally unfair, but arguably morally net positive. If however, you offer a check that the person can use at their discretion (and thus choose to for example use it for vacation or gambling or any purpose they choose), then it is unfair and morally questionable. I think this is obvious. Separately, I do not think it is unfair description at all, but rather an objective measure of the service proposed, as opposed to a subjective one from thethe population that stands to gain vs the population that stands to lose. I have listed scenarios that I think are fundamentally unfair: young able-bodied members of society with no dependents receiving aid whereas older members of society that have dependents would not. It doesn't matter to me that "we already" do unfair things, this point has not been at all addressed. Existing wrongs are not arguments for new wrongs. Additionally, regardless of whether you agree with the fundamental morality of these situations, I think you can't argue with proposed consequences. I think that this system will absolutely make immigration harder in the US (through increased "protective" insular policies to keep "freeloaders" out), and thus hurt the economy as a whole.
  - Retra 11y ago
    I still don't see how that's an argument. How is it unfair to offer US citizens the resources collected by the US government? That is the express reason the concept of a "US citizen" exists. US citizens pay taxes. They choose to distribute that money among themselves. That is the purpose of the US government: to protect and serve the interests of US citizens. If you feel that this is morally wrong, then I don't see how you can't argue that every single aspect of any government is morally wrong. The fact that I live in the US and not Syria is unfair, but it's not morally wrong. "If however, you offer a check that the person can use at their discretion (and thus choose to for example use it for vacation or gambling or any purpose they choose), then it is unfair and morally questionable. I think this is obvious." Do you have a job? Are there stipulations on how you can spend your money? Because you are arguing that paying people without such stipulation is morally questionable. And furthermore, Immigration is already controlled. You don't get US Citizenship without the approval of the federal government. How does this change that? They let fewer people get citizenship? If these immigrants are benefiting the economy, then surely they are worth the basic income we'd be paying them for that benefit. Which gets me to my point: You're not handing out free money for nothing. You're paying people to be economic participants. There's no reason to require stipulations on that, and no reason for you to think it's considerably more unfair to anybody than the regular variation in life's circumstances.
drblast 11y ago
Not sure how welfare programs, which already exist, don't have this same problem and yet, we manage. But even if you did this on a global level and gave everyone $20, think about what that impact would be. It's an interesting thought experiment. Consider the impoverished nation where an extra $20 would significantly impact a person's life. Would the dollar replace the local currency there eventually? Would that strengthen the dollar overall? Would it stimulate the world economy such that we'd all benefit? I don't know the answers, but this sounds like it could work for just the U.S. and experiments in the past with it during the Nixon era have had positive results. Why would it not work on a global scale?
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
America is already pretty anti-immigration It has failed miserably, then. Of course, there were land law and exclusion acts enacted as legislation throughout history. Nonetheless, the USA's arrangement of basing citizenship on the principle of jus soli as opposed to jus sanguinis means its identity is a national/soil-based one and not an ethnic bloodline division, making it nominally inclusive. Hard nativism is a rather rare sentiment these days, too.
- tolmasky 11y ago
  It has succeeded spectacularly. Have you tried to hire a foreigner as a startup? It is absurdly difficult and essentially creates dramatically unfair advantages for large corporations that can afford to streamline through the bureaucracy while startups cannot. Additionally, once the employee is sponsored by a company it is unfairly difficult for them to move in the job market, once again helping the large corporation at the expense of the worker.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
cmacpher 11y ago
Alaska solves this partially solves this problem by setting a timeframe. You must live there for 1 year. Same idea could potentially be used (but maybe extended because of larger $)
mc32 11y ago
>America is already pretty anti-immigration Of the larger economies, America accepts more immigrants than anyone else, even the "progressive" countries. It's among the top 5 countries in terms of percent immigrants as part of the population, not counting places like Bahrain who have migrant laborers. Can you imagine if millions of people who earn less than USD 5,000/year tried settling in Mexico, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Thailand? Can you imagine how "anti-immigration" they would be?

Retra 11y ago

"Make basic income only available to US citizens. Congratulations, we have now fully devolved into a classist society" Do you honestly think that this is a fair description of the consequences of that course of action? There are plenty of things only available to US citizens. Voting. Running for office. Any kind of federal assistance. Military enrollment. Diplomatic protections. I really don't see how this option is anything different from what we already have. It would be federal assistance, after all, and non-citizens already don't get that.

tolmasky 11y ago
As I stated in my own comment, we already have a form of this today, so clearly I do think it is similar to our current system. However, I think that a defining differentiator is that a basic income can assist in luxury assistance beyond pure help. That is to say, if we offer purely assistive programs that are arguably necessary to a subset of the population (such as healthcare), it is clearly fundamentally unfair, but arguably morally net positive. If however, you offer a check that the person can use at their discretion (and thus choose to for example use it for vacation or gambling or any purpose they choose), then it is unfair and morally questionable. I think this is obvious. Separately, I do not think it is unfair description at all, but rather an objective measure of the service proposed, as opposed to a subjective one from thethe population that stands to gain vs the population that stands to lose. I have listed scenarios that I think are fundamentally unfair: young able-bodied members of society with no dependents receiving aid whereas older members of society that have dependents would not. It doesn't matter to me that "we already" do unfair things, this point has not been at all addressed. Existing wrongs are not arguments for new wrongs. Additionally, regardless of whether you agree with the fundamental morality of these situations, I think you can't argue with proposed consequences. I think that this system will absolutely make immigration harder in the US (through increased "protective" insular policies to keep "freeloaders" out), and thus hurt the economy as a whole.
- Retra 11y ago
  I still don't see how that's an argument. How is it unfair to offer US citizens the resources collected by the US government? That is the express reason the concept of a "US citizen" exists. US citizens pay taxes. They choose to distribute that money among themselves. That is the purpose of the US government: to protect and serve the interests of US citizens. If you feel that this is morally wrong, then I don't see how you can't argue that every single aspect of any government is morally wrong. The fact that I live in the US and not Syria is unfair, but it's not morally wrong. "If however, you offer a check that the person can use at their discretion (and thus choose to for example use it for vacation or gambling or any purpose they choose), then it is unfair and morally questionable. I think this is obvious." Do you have a job? Are there stipulations on how you can spend your money? Because you are arguing that paying people without such stipulation is morally questionable. And furthermore, Immigration is already controlled. You don't get US Citizenship without the approval of the federal government. How does this change that? They let fewer people get citizenship? If these immigrants are benefiting the economy, then surely they are worth the basic income we'd be paying them for that benefit. Which gets me to my point: You're not handing out free money for nothing. You're paying people to be economic participants. There's no reason to require stipulations on that, and no reason for you to think it's considerably more unfair to anybody than the regular variation in life's circumstances.

drblast 11y ago

Not sure how welfare programs, which already exist, don't have this same problem and yet, we manage. But even if you did this on a global level and gave everyone $20, think about what that impact would be. It's an interesting thought experiment. Consider the impoverished nation where an extra $20 would significantly impact a person's life. Would the dollar replace the local currency there eventually? Would that strengthen the dollar overall? Would it stimulate the world economy such that we'd all benefit? I don't know the answers, but this sounds like it could work for just the U.S. and experiments in the past with it during the Nixon era have had positive results. Why would it not work on a global scale?

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

America is already pretty anti-immigration It has failed miserably, then. Of course, there were land law and exclusion acts enacted as legislation throughout history. Nonetheless, the USA's arrangement of basing citizenship on the principle of jus soli as opposed to jus sanguinis means its identity is a national/soil-based one and not an ethnic bloodline division, making it nominally inclusive. Hard nativism is a rather rare sentiment these days, too.

tolmasky 11y ago
It has succeeded spectacularly. Have you tried to hire a foreigner as a startup? It is absurdly difficult and essentially creates dramatically unfair advantages for large corporations that can afford to streamline through the bureaucracy while startups cannot. Additionally, once the employee is sponsored by a company it is unfairly difficult for them to move in the job market, once again helping the large corporation at the expense of the worker.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

cmacpher 11y ago

Alaska solves this partially solves this problem by setting a timeframe. You must live there for 1 year. Same idea could potentially be used (but maybe extended because of larger $)

mc32 11y ago

>America is already pretty anti-immigration Of the larger economies, America accepts more immigrants than anyone else, even the "progressive" countries. It's among the top 5 countries in terms of percent immigrants as part of the population, not counting places like Bahrain who have migrant laborers. Can you imagine if millions of people who earn less than USD 5,000/year tried settling in Mexico, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Thailand? Can you imagine how "anti-immigration" they would be?