11 ms·
Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion
- gfsn54nsf 11y agoI wonder if universal basic income is going to change the ad hoc basic income we already have in place -- the one where I'm supporting my retired parents, my wife, and my pre-workforce kid.
- jacquesm 11y agoIf you're supporting your retired parents that's a strong signal of a big failure at a societal level.
- donatj 11y agoI disagree. That's why you have children.
- jacquesm 11y agoI really would not want my children to have to plan to support me.
- Turing_Machine 11y agoThat philosophy is directly responsible for overpopulation. If you need to have children to keep from starving to death when you're old, you'll want to have a lot of them. Note that the areas where this is true are precisely the ones with catastrophically high birth rates, and the areas where there are pensions, social programs, etc. are precisely the ones where population is stable, or even falling.
- lmz 11y ago> Note that the areas where this is true are precisely the ones with catastrophically high birth rates, and the areas where there are pensions, social programs, etc. are precisely the ones where population is stable, or even falling. And then those countries with pensions and falling population are mentioned as ones who need to import immigrants in order to keep their pension pyramid scheme working...
- Turing_Machine 11y agoWell, you could do other things to encourage more births. It's been done before, with significant success.
- pmalynin 11y agoA la Mussolini-esque pro-family propaganda?
- Turing_Machine 11y agoPropaganda, increased tax credits (or even outright subsidies) for having children, tax penalties for not having children...
- tsotha 11y agoWhere? Every country I'm aware of that dipped below replacement fertility has not been able to recover.
- Turing_Machine 11y agoIsrael, for one. http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/children-of-israel/ http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/children-of-isr...
- Turing_Machine 11y agoAre any of the people who keep modding this down able to provide a counterexample (i.e., a country where the "social safety net" consists of having lots of children that doesn't have a big population problem)? Facts are facts, whether you like them or not.
- darkmighty 11y agoWait, is that the reason you would have children?
- MBlume 11y agoEw.
- SHIT_TALKER 11y agoWhy can it not be the story of individual failure? It is not for no reason the fable of the Ant & the Grasshopper is a staple of western civilization. When corporations are bailed out for their poor decisions, it is reviled as moral hazard and considered to set a precedent of rewarding reckless behavior. Why not apply the same standards to individuals?
- ericd 11y agoIt's the norm in China, and it seems to have benefits, especially if you have children of your own.
- jacquesm 11y agoAs an economic entity China has a ton of submerged problems and I don't think their 'solutions' to any problem will easily transplant to the rest of the world without accepting a bunch of their other problems into the package as well.
- meric 11y agoIt happens also in Hong Kong as well and is an intentional policy of the government. There is also a small HKD$1000 per month and is only intended as a subsidy. I note Hong Kong has one of the lowest personal income tax rates in the world.
- paulsutter 11y agoMy parents would be fine without my support, but I'm supporting them anyway. How does that signal anything negative at all? ps. gfsn54nsf never said they needed his help, nor did he say that he's somehow forced to support them.
- jacquesm 11y agoIt's not a bad thing if you can afford it. But if you can't then society should be right there and without such a catch-net people will have children to support them, not because they actually want children (they simply see them as an economic asset and a pension plan). I strongly suspect that UBI will result in a net decrease in the birth rate wherever it is implemented. For the record, I supported my mom for some years because (1) I could and (2) she needed it but if she could have kept herself afloat she would have definitely chosen that path instead (she got hit with a brain hemorrhage (sp?) and needed to go back to work long before she was physically able to).
- alextgordon 11y agoWhen you're old, too old to work, someone will need to work to support you. I'm sceptical that the anglophone world has it so figured out. In Britain we have the pension system. In America the mechanism is rising asset prices. In Britain the pension system is falling apart under the weight of demographic change -- pensions are by far the largest public expense, and the age to qualify is rising. I doubt I will ever get a pension. In America, there is the opposite problem. People are supposed to put their money into the stock market (via a 401k). The idea is that equity prices go up over time at a rate exceeding inflation, so if you're old you can sell your assets to the people saving now -- for a profit. The problem with this, is that it doesn't always work that way. The Nikkei hit its all-time high in 1989. The S&P sat in a two decade funk from 1970 to 1990. So all we've done is add more layers of abstraction. Instead of your children supporting you, now everyone's children are supporting you, and instead of supporting you out of filial love, they hate your very existence.
- donatj 11y agoIf I could live and not have a job, I wouldn't have a job. I could do my art and enjoy my life and the economy would crumble while everyone else watches Netflix.
- dclowd9901 11y agoIf I could live and not have a job I would have a job because I love awesome cars and people would pay me what I deserve to be paid because people who didn't want to work wouldn't be overcrowding the market. I want more than the basics and it requires money. You just want to practice your art. I'm happy to pay for you to do nothing so long as you're happy with me having far far more than you materially.
- philipov 11y agoYou are happy to say that because you don't currently have far, far more than everyone else, and so in your mind, "I get a lot more money, but I have to pay some of it back" sounds like a nice bargain. However, the people who already have far, far more wealth than everyone else have nothing to gain from that way of thinking, as they already have most of the wealth without having to pay UBI. So why would they allow it?
- forrestthewoods 11y agoOn a global level if you're posting on this board you almost certainly have far, far more than everyone else. So by "everyone" you really mean "not everyone but only certain geographic groups of someone".
- JackFr 11y agoIf I read it correctly, in all of the case studies referenced in the article, the basic income provided was exogenous. That is, the basic income going to the villagers, was not coming from the villagers. So it's not surprising that everyone got chummy when the money flowed in. However a complete picture would show how the people paying felt about it.
- paulsutter 11y agoThe money for basic income will come from automation driven productivity improvements. Many of the people who are "paying for it" (ie, putting in the thousands of man-years to create those technologies) have exactly that intent, to free people from drudgery. EDIT: pvnick, yes the consensus is measured in decades. Some think fewer, some think more, but yes and thanks.
- msandford 11y agoRight, but those don't exist in a vacuum. There are people who funded that research and think that they should own the fruits of the labor as per the contracts that they executed with the people they paid to perform the work. If you want to do away with various kinds of property rights that's a valid argument to make. But you don't get to pretend that it isn't a new, different way. Ultimately you're going to take some things from some people in order to give it to other people. Maybe that's smart, maybe it's not. But no matter how you slice it, it's not manna from heaven.
- afterburner 11y agoIt's called taxes, and it doesn't "do away with various kinds of property rights"
- msandford 11y agoThe amount of taxes and the laser-like focus of said taxation required to make basic income both workable and meaningful for the population at large won't really feel like taxes. 60% of all income above $X per year versus the 40% now is a tax, sure. But the original comment was "The money for basic income will come from automation driven productivity improvements." So you're going to make a new tax of 500% on sales of automation equipment? Or 50% of the money saved per year by your installation of automation equipment? And then hire several million auditors to go inspect every facility in the country every year to ensure that people aren't installing unregistered automation equipment? There are already a bunch of tax laws on the books that should make those automation drive increases in profitability get taxed and go into the government's coffers. But companies are very adept at finding loopholes, getting new loopholes, etc. Structuring their business so as to minimize their tax burden. I think it's pretty obvious that just "raising taxes" won't accomplish enough revenue to make basic income work. So that means you've got to do something new, and something that probably won't feel like any previous tax ever levied. While you might argue that if it's a tax it's a tax (and that's probably technically true) there's a huge difference between increasing existing tax rates and generating substantially new tax law.
- SHIT_TALKER 11y agoIn the studies mentioned, were immigrants able to move into the areas receiving UBI and avail themselves of those funds? It doesn't appear so. What difference might that have made? And wouldn't that have made them more realistic experiments? (Were the experiments specifically designed to produce positive outcomes?) Can the experiments even be considered to have been about UBI? What does giving money to a small group and finding it makes them happy have to do with the likely outcome of a state-level wealth distribution scheme? Doesn't receiving money for nothing make everyone happier and more trusting?
- Falkon1313 11y agoI don't know whether they did that in the studies, but here in the U.S., we have a long tradition of immigrants moving in and participating in the local bounty. We celebrate it, in fact. A major holiday coming up next month is centered around exactly that - immigrants being thankful for the wealth they had received.
- SHIT_TALKER 11y agoThat's one of the most disingenuous statements I've ever read. The first European colonists were all scratching an existence out of the ground via their labor and celebrated, as was their religious tradition, the bountiful harvest they had "received" via Providence. That in no way resembles a modern nation-state making direct cash payments (money taken via taxes from the native population) to whoever makes it, by hook or by crook, across the border.
- dclowd9901 11y agoI think it's especially telling that even in a 3rd world country where one might expect profound poverty to be the norm, a basic income still provided a cushion against the social friction that comes with poverty. God damn lets just do this already.
- viahartdotcom 11y agoJust like communism.
- lambdapie 11y agoBasic income is just classical economics rebranded, and basic income is not drastically different from welfare systems that are simple, rule based, and have minimal compliance monitoring, for example Australia's. Most of the arguments for basic income apply just as well to a welfare system like Australia's. The ones that to not are the worst ones. E.g. it's said that basic income avoids disincentivizing work. And yet as an accounting identity, all redistribution schemes must disincentive work for some people. Welfare systems place a greater disincentive to work on the poorest, which to me makes sense as many of these people have a lower intrinsic incentive to work in the first place. In any case, the lower marginal effective tax rate for the poor under basic income, is only possible because of a higher marginal effective tax rate for the middle class.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoWhy would you need tax with a basic income? Flip it around and incorporate the tax into the income distribution.
- lambdapie 11y agoI don't understand your point. Can you clarify? For reference, when I speak of "marginal effective tax rate" I mean the marginal effective tax rate after including (1) welfare payments to you, (2) the tax you pay and (3) any basic income you receive, although (3) does not directly contribute to the marginal effective tax rate, since it is zero.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoI'm just thinking that instead of taxing some other money (primarily debt) to fund the basic income, the basic income itself can be the money (though, additional monies may be desired), which would obviate any need for taxes/reclaimation.
- tene 11y agoThe usual justification for this is that it's simpler, and reduces additional incentives to cheat the system and additional overhead. We currently have a means already in place to claim a portion of an individual's income, through taxes. More-traditional means-tested welfare systems have additional overhead of a second system trying to investigate your income to determine how the government chooses to interfere in your finances. The proposed intuition is that you get a simpler system with less overhead by just giving out a flat UBI payment, and also claiming some amount of that back via taxes that people already file, rather than employing an army of people to investigate your income every month before deciding how much to give out. I'm not entirely certain that I've actually answered the question you intended to ask. If I'm way off the mark, could you try rephrasing a bit?
- ps4fanboy 11y agoPeople are using Australia as an example, we have very large taxes (most people pay at least 25%, some 35%+) we also have a 10% tax on all goods and high GDP per capita. You cant fund social welfare programs without huge taxes on everyone not just the rich.
- vorg 11y agoAustralia along with Canada have the highest wealth per person of any countries in the world. Much of the wealth comes from a large land area divided by a tiny population. I remember reading in an Australian magazine about 15 yrs ago (but forget the details) that Australia is the country with the largest proportion of "made-up jobs", i.e. jobs in finance, law, IT, etc which don't actually contribute to the production and distribution of goods and services. By making laws which businesses must comply with by creating "made-up jobs", the government is ensuring there's enough work for everyone, a form of basic income.
- eru 11y agoOh, indeed. The nanny state is strong here in New South Wales. You can't open a nursery in a building above a certain height. Even if the kids are only ever going to be on the ground floor.
- visarga 11y agoBasic Income sounds great on paper but I fear that it will lead to a new kind of servitude towards the state, that will be the only provider. Politicians will have even more access (direct access) to the quality of life of their electorate. What will stop states to link the "Chinese style credit score" to the quantum of BI one receives? How will we make sure the quantum of basic income is enough for a decent life? How will we convince people that they got enough and avoid falling into dissatisfaction with it? I suppose people will always bitch about BI being too low.
- qrendel 11y agoThat seems like an important consideration. Another I wonder about is whether it will just create a new baseline for poverty, causing either short-term or continual inflation. (Though I'm not opposed to basic income, just skeptical about the net benefit.) Another related issue is greater incentive to restrict immigration, deny benefits to criminals, etc, compared to a society where no one collects any benefits.
- eru 11y agoYou can look at central and northern European soziale Marktwirtschaft to get some of your questions about how it could work out in practice answered. They don't have basic income, yet, but they do have fairly generous welfare payments, that do try to provide for a decent life.
- dragonbonheur 11y agoI find it both funny and appalling how Americans view any sort of movement in the common social interest as a threat. It's as if they want to maintain an inegalitarian status-quo that only protects the richest minority, even if they are not part of it. Absolutely ridiculous.
- nickff 11y agoSome approach the issue from a Kantian perspective, and ask 'what right does A have to take B's money and give it to C?'[1] Others (of a more utilitarian leaning) wonder whether redistribution will 'kill the engine of prosperity'. The USA has overtaken Britain in per capita GDP by growing 1% (point) faster per year for 100 years, and many believe that redistribution reduces growth. What part of this is "absolutely ridiculous"? [1] http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rbannis1/AIH19th/Sumner.Forgotten.html http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rbannis1/AIH19th/Sumner.For...
- dragonbonheur 11y agoThe part of it that is ridiculous is that Americans protect their richest minority without being part of it. Seriously, America is the country where paid sickness leaves or maternity leaves are not guaranteed. America is the country where waiters are expected to make the most of their living income from tips and not from their salary. America is the country where local governments have outlawed people from collecting rainwater while giving exclusive contracts to rich corporations to collect ground water or pollute it by dumping fracking waste into or near it. America is the country where the police can rob normal people from their money without probable cause (civil asset forfeiture) and the majority will rally behind said policemen because "blue lives matter". America is the country where home owners aren't free to plant vegetables in from of their own houses, on their own property and you call that country "the land of the free". America is the country that goes to war to make corporations and shareholders richer and you all call it "bringing them liberation and democracy" while America's legislators, judges, sheriffs and government officials can be bought by Political Action Committees and "unions", sometimes for as little as access to garden parties, golf clubs, tickets for sports events in VIP boxes and other trinkets. Do you think those laws are to protect the people, or corporations like Walmart, Costco, Nestle, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil and others? Still absolutely ridiculous. Here's the thing about the future of humanity: if we want to have a future without perpetual (American-caused) war, we must promote and nurture post-scarcity cultures.
- Falkon1313 11y agoConsider agriculture. It used to employ over 80% of the workforce, now less than 2%. But now, with over 98% unemployment, we're not starving. Instead, we're wasting 40% of our food, exporting food, and reading articles about obesity epidemics and how the grocery store is reducing its 57 varieties of ketchup so that we won't have so much difficulty choosing. Manufacturing is going that way. We're well into the disposable junk and cheaper to replace than repair era. Relatively few people work in industry now. That only leaves services. But how many people does it take to hand you your burger or bag your new cellphone? Repairmen have less to do now that most everything is disposable. Even in the more professional level services, salaries have been stagnant for decades, moreso than minimum wage in some cases. Sure companies complain that they can't find good talent, but they're not willing to pay for it, so they don't really need it. The traditionalists say "people will just go do something else, like they always have" but what? Well, for now, some could become Uber drivers or such...until the automated cars come online in a few years. Then what? And how many Uber drivers do we need? Can they make a good living doing that if everyone else is too? People moved from the farms to the cities to do industrial work, then commuted from the suburbs to do commercial and services work. Where do they go when none of the farms, cities, and suburbs need workers anymore (and they can't afford to live in any of those places)?
- rebootthesystem 11y ago> but what? People making candles couldn't imagine another set of people would be employed for years making light bulbs. Newspaper owners, investors, writers and workers could not foresee the Internet. Nobody could imagine making money with software that played back fart sounds or allowed you to launch an angry bird into a structure. The point is: Not being able to answer the question is of no consequence. Progress and change will still happen despite our collective lack of imagination and malfunctioning crystal balls.
- Sammi 11y agoBut all the progress is only going in the direction of automation. The long term macro trend is clear. Why do we have so many pointless jobs today?
- jqm 11y agoWhat I'd like to see is machines on the street (like drinking fountains) that dispense (at no charge) nutritious meals. I'd like to see a global network of (robot cleaned) rooms anyone can go into at any time, (at no charge), and sleep. I'd like to see free transportation. Free education. Free places you can go work. Free places to go watch a movie. The best medical care at no charge. I'd like for people to completely have to stop worrying about providing for biological needs and have those met with 0 friction. And... I'm pretty sure all this will happen with time. The problem now is we have this myopia about money. We think it's something more than just the symbol or variable it actually is. But really it's a fairly new invention. We have done without it for most of our history. Don't get me wrong... the invention of money as a concept has allowed great leaps forward in technology and progress. But the concept isn't eternal and it has it's downsides. One is that it creates a certain amount of friction. You have people spending too much effort playing with the symbol rather than what it represents. Ideally, I'd like to own absolutely nothing. Except for a great big sack. When I need something, I'd tell the sack and out comes the thing I need. When I'm done, it goes back and the sack and disappears and no more worrying about it. That's how I think it should be.
- ConceptJunkie 11y agoNo it won't. Full stop. It will drive a further wedge between the producers and consumers in society, which plays right into the class warfare rhetoric that the politicians who would support UBI are always fomenting. Who's going to pay for UBI? Everyone! I see the amount of $10,000 thrown about. There are 235 million adults in the U.S. That's $2.35 trillion per annum, more than 13% of the GDP. You don't think the taxation required to generate that kind of money won't reach far down into the middle class? Dream on. And we are going sacrifice $2.35 trillion for what? It won't increase productivity. If anything it will reduce it somewhat. Yes, I'm ignoring the benefit it will be to the truly needy, and that's important, but for the majority of the country, the UBI will be way more offset by the much higher amount they have to pay in additional taxes. Social cohesion, my ass.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoStraw man. Using 'taxation' as a boogeyman is where everybody goes, when first thinking about this topic. Read more about it. Printing money is another way - I know, it has other effects, but that could be very useful in the current financial situation. There are other solutions as well. 'Money' is an imaginary concept managed by arbitrary rules, and if a BI is created then rules will have to be changed.