4 ms·

The actual case against basic income: it reduces work effort drastically (13%) in the experiment where this was measured. For comparison, the great recession re

The actual case against basic income: it reduces work effort drastically (13%) in the experiment where this was measured. For comparison, the great recession reduced work effort by about 5% (near as I can tell, based on looking at the delta in unemployment rate). http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf We'd like to pretend everyone is a self-motivated software engineer who will create value for the world for personal fulfillment. The data shows this belief is false.

chias 11y ago
Wouldn't this eventually balance out though? Productivity goes down, supply of goods goes down, price of goods goes up, pay for work producing such goods goes up, productivity goes up?
vidarh 11y ago
Part of the reason basic income is bandied about more and more is that the amount of people who is starting to believe that capitalism is eventually becoming efficient enough to drive up unemployment is rising (though most of these people are probably unaware that this is a central part of Marx' thesis of how he believed capitalism will eventually give rise to its own demise). There is a growing fear amongst some that automation will finally overtake job creation, and that the resulting unemployment will be sufficient to throw masses of people back into poverty. If that actually happens, then a 13% reduction in work effort might very well be less than desirable if one wishes to prevent social unrest. There are two key benefits of basic income in that respect: Firstly, to ensure that if people are unable to find a job, they can still live a decent life. Secondly, to reduce the amount of people forced into unemployment by making more people choose to not work or work less, whether because they choose education or choose to stay home with their young children, or choose to retire earlier, or simply choose to make do with less. Of course, the pre-requisite for that to be viable is that society can make do with 13% less work effort (or whatever it ends up being, whether more or less).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- nerfhammer 11y ago
  Self-driving vehicles will permanently eliminate several of the most common occupations in the world – truck drivers, delivery drivers, bus drivers, and taxi drivers – and that's coming in just a few years.
  - eru 11y ago
    Globally we are still in the process of eliminating the most common occupation of all: subsistence farmer.
gnaritas 11y ago
> The actual case against basic income: it reduces work effort drastically (13%) in the experiment where this was measured. That's not a case against it, that's one of the benefits of it. The notion that everyone must work is antiquated in this continually automating world and will soon no longer be possible. The people who are losing jobs don't have the skills to be in demand and demand for human workers will only continually decrease as time passes. When you automate people, the rules change; it's not going to be like the past where people just did different jobs. There won't be enough jobs that require human skills enough to keep more than a small part of humanity working.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  In that case, lets have more banking crises! They also reduce work effort. We are not yet in the era when humans are useless. We still need Uber drivers, house cleaners, and day care workers. Once we reach the era where robots have made everyone obsolete, BI will be so cheap to provide that no one will bother to oppose it.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > We are not yet in the era when humans are useless. I didn't say we were, I said it's coming, and we need to adapt before then or it'll be terribly hard on society.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    You can do better than this straw-man. As best I can tell reducing work effort is good, but neither the banking crises nor a BI hold much of ceteris anything like paribus. The banking crisis saw work effort fall, but also saw productivity fall and saw incomes fall for a great many individuals. It's not hard to imagine that that nets out negative.
- zghst 11y ago
  I think many place too much faith that while someone isn't working, they will be doing good things with their time and not having negative effects on the society or economy or the human race. Everyone earning their keep is not an antiquated concept. It humbles people. Fills their time with purpose. Improves their intelligence and resiliency. I have known many idle people in my life, none have been worth a damn. Supporting someone because they exists is a horrible idea! Maybe these elites should step out of their bubble and into the real world of poverty. A paycheck is not the only issue in the world of being poor!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dllthomas 11y ago
"We'd like to pretend everyone is a self-motivated software engineer who will create value for the world for personal fulfillment." Considered strictly (literally "everyone", specifically "software engineer"), it may actually be the case that literally no one believes that. Let's consider a weaker interpretation, more precisely phrased "enough people are sufficiently self-motivated to create value for the world that the perceived decrease in productivity due to workers opting out of traditional employment will be substantially made up for by the other things these people choose to be productive at." And contrary to your claims, the data you provided not only fails to show that this is false, but lends some support to the notion. From the same paragraph whence you draw the 13% figure: "Because the primary earner typically worked many more hours than the secondary and tertiary earners, this implied a relatively small reduction in work effort by primary earners."* "The general result that secondary earners tend to take some part of the increased family income in the form of more time for household production, particularly staying home with newborns, was found in all the experiments" To a large extent, "Mincome reduced work effort" in the same sense that a man marrying his housekeeper reduces GDP. It does not mean people are being correspondingly less productive! It is also not clear to me how volunteering would have been counted towards work effort, and non-commercial art almost certainly would not. Regarding "software engineer" in particular, the study took place in the 1970s. For many well-paid jobs, the initial capital requirements look qualitatively different.

chias 11y ago

Wouldn't this eventually balance out though? Productivity goes down, supply of goods goes down, price of goods goes up, pay for work producing such goods goes up, productivity goes up?

vidarh 11y ago

Part of the reason basic income is bandied about more and more is that the amount of people who is starting to believe that capitalism is eventually becoming efficient enough to drive up unemployment is rising (though most of these people are probably unaware that this is a central part of Marx' thesis of how he believed capitalism will eventually give rise to its own demise). There is a growing fear amongst some that automation will finally overtake job creation, and that the resulting unemployment will be sufficient to throw masses of people back into poverty. If that actually happens, then a 13% reduction in work effort might very well be less than desirable if one wishes to prevent social unrest. There are two key benefits of basic income in that respect: Firstly, to ensure that if people are unable to find a job, they can still live a decent life. Secondly, to reduce the amount of people forced into unemployment by making more people choose to not work or work less, whether because they choose education or choose to stay home with their young children, or choose to retire earlier, or simply choose to make do with less. Of course, the pre-requisite for that to be viable is that society can make do with 13% less work effort (or whatever it ends up being, whether more or less).

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nerfhammer 11y ago
Self-driving vehicles will permanently eliminate several of the most common occupations in the world – truck drivers, delivery drivers, bus drivers, and taxi drivers – and that's coming in just a few years.
- eru 11y ago
  Globally we are still in the process of eliminating the most common occupation of all: subsistence farmer.

gnaritas 11y ago

> The actual case against basic income: it reduces work effort drastically (13%) in the experiment where this was measured. That's not a case against it, that's one of the benefits of it. The notion that everyone must work is antiquated in this continually automating world and will soon no longer be possible. The people who are losing jobs don't have the skills to be in demand and demand for human workers will only continually decrease as time passes. When you automate people, the rules change; it's not going to be like the past where people just did different jobs. There won't be enough jobs that require human skills enough to keep more than a small part of humanity working.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
In that case, lets have more banking crises! They also reduce work effort. We are not yet in the era when humans are useless. We still need Uber drivers, house cleaners, and day care workers. Once we reach the era where robots have made everyone obsolete, BI will be so cheap to provide that no one will bother to oppose it.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > We are not yet in the era when humans are useless. I didn't say we were, I said it's coming, and we need to adapt before then or it'll be terribly hard on society.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  You can do better than this straw-man. As best I can tell reducing work effort is good, but neither the banking crises nor a BI hold much of ceteris anything like paribus. The banking crisis saw work effort fall, but also saw productivity fall and saw incomes fall for a great many individuals. It's not hard to imagine that that nets out negative.
zghst 11y ago
I think many place too much faith that while someone isn't working, they will be doing good things with their time and not having negative effects on the society or economy or the human race. Everyone earning their keep is not an antiquated concept. It humbles people. Fills their time with purpose. Improves their intelligence and resiliency. I have known many idle people in my life, none have been worth a damn. Supporting someone because they exists is a horrible idea! Maybe these elites should step out of their bubble and into the real world of poverty. A paycheck is not the only issue in the world of being poor!

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dllthomas 11y ago

"We'd like to pretend everyone is a self-motivated software engineer who will create value for the world for personal fulfillment." Considered strictly (literally "everyone", specifically "software engineer"), it may actually be the case that literally no one believes that. Let's consider a weaker interpretation, more precisely phrased "enough people are sufficiently self-motivated to create value for the world that the perceived decrease in productivity due to workers opting out of traditional employment will be substantially made up for by the other things these people choose to be productive at." And contrary to your claims, the data you provided not only fails to show that this is false, but lends some support to the notion. From the same paragraph whence you draw the 13% figure: "Because the primary earner typically worked many more hours than the secondary and tertiary earners, this implied a relatively small reduction in work effort by primary earners."* "The general result that secondary earners tend to take some part of the increased family income in the form of more time for household production, particularly staying home with newborns, was found in all the experiments" To a large extent, "Mincome reduced work effort" in the same sense that a man marrying his housekeeper reduces GDP. It does not mean people are being correspondingly less productive! It is also not clear to me how volunteering would have been counted towards work effort, and non-commercial art almost certainly would not. Regarding "software engineer" in particular, the study took place in the 1970s. For many well-paid jobs, the initial capital requirements look qualitatively different.