6 ms·

This is actually a really compelling argument that I hadn't heard before. Is there a good, short-ish reference on these arguments that you know of?

CookieMon 11y ago
Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index Basic income better aligns everyone's economic incentives, so it solves (in theory) a whole host of the problems we've got. It's great to hear that some form of it is going to be tried.
- notahacker 11y ago
  It's a pity that the proponents there have to resort to including mathematical impossibilities on their list.... "A basic income, coupled with a flat tax, is capable of mimicking all aspects of our current progressive (bracketed) taxation scheme, but without brackets." Basic income realigns people's incentives. It might be better than a really badly designed welfare system at removing "welfare traps", but it also can be expected to have a whole host of negative aspects in comparison to other possible configurations of the payment of government subsidies.
  - kwhitefoot 11y ago
    > host of negative aspects Such as?
  - polymatter 11y ago
    what are the "whole host of negative aspects"? I will accept that there are almost certainly edge cases which I can't predict that will need ironing out. probably due to the administration of updating the list appropriately. but basic income seems very much like the proverbial silver bullet that never exists, so I am curious over its negative aspects. in discussing with friends and family, the worst thing about basic income is it means paying people for doing nothing and that _really_ _really_ angers some people. even worse, it means even millionaires get basic income!
    - notahacker 11y ago
      most of the whole host of negative impacts depend heavily on the level that it's set and what other benefits are withdrawn, which there's very little agreement over. Low end BI with aggressive removal of other means tested subsidies generally leaves poor people looking for work much poorer; high end BI is leaves most taxpayers much poorer, whilst potentially seeing , much of the increase to people on low incomes swallowed up in increased rent. But more generally: - massive distortion of low-end wages, particularly for unpleasant, useful but not particularly revenue-generating jobs such as cleaning. Further outsourcing of manufacturing work for the same reason might be considered a negative aspect by some (especially people with moderate-to high skills related to that manufacturing) - massive skewing of wage payments away from younger people in many competitive areas of employment, because now that the taxpayer will cover living costs and assuming removal of minimum wages there's absolutely no reason to pay trainees, apprentices (or the likes of runners desperate to make it in television) any non-trivial sum until they've spend a long time "proving their worth". - regional cost-of-living differences and a guaranteed permanent income encourage former job-seekers to relocate to areas where their prospect of getting a job is minimal. This is further exacerbated if better-targeted housing benefit payments and social housing are removed from the equation. - depending on the level of BI entitlement children get they're either likely to become a lucrative income source or unaffordable in many areas, especially for single parents. - a surprising amount of BI revenue will be captured by low-end rents, and other costs that people with more cash to spend at the bottom of the pyramid can't avoid. A surprising amount of BI costs will be funded by the productive - non-citizens are inevitably going to be heavily penalised (otherwise the country becomes an migrant magnet) - many advocates use BI as an excuse to push for middle-class squeezing flattening of the tax system, withdrawal of education and health subsidies etc. - the cost of paying people who would really rather not work almost certainly vastly exceeds the cost of paying wages to people whose job it is to kick people who would really rather not work off benefit programmes. Throw in the fact that people who never had any intention of claiming benefits are now entitled to them. Like every other reform to the tax or benefit system there are a whole host of winners and losers (including people you probably don't want to be winners like "slum landlords" and the indolent, and people you probably don't want to be losers like the owners of the neighbourhood cleaning firm and hardworking immigrants). It's about as far from the proverbial silver bullet as imaginable: it's reforming existing incentives that have (for better or worse) been tested and debated for decades with a blunt instrument.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kriro 11y ago
It's one of the standard arguments against a minimum wage. What follows is that by implementing it, you inadvertently hit the early-entry work force the hardest (in the US that would typically be teenagers getting their first jobs). Apart from the general arguments against price floors and ceilings I think the other major argument against the minimum wage is that in the current systems (which a cynic could call lobby capitalism), minimum wage laws actually benefit "well connected incumbants" in low wage sectors who can use them to make market entry a lot harder for the competition. German minimum wage in the postage sector could probably serve as a decent example if memory serves me well. There's a chapter on minimum wage in "Economics in One Lesson" that picks up the argument of the parent post.
- Loic 11y ago
  I am living in Germany, the removal of the German minimum wage in the postage sector resulted in effectively more companies providing post service, but for the end user, the price has not changed at all. But you see a lot of people bringing the mail in nearly destroyed cars, with the look of miserable people. I am all for competition, but in this case, the net benefit for the end users is zero and it created extremely low pay jobs. The competitors of Deutsche Post are now using special structures not to pay the minimum wage to people (they are contractors) and this pushes Deutsche Post to do the same. So, for this case, it was not good. In fact, the people in Germany pushed to get a minimum wage for all employees and the right wing government accepted. It shows you how bad the lack of minimum wage was for the people.
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    The government accepted, but with a lot of loopholes for companies.
  - adwn 11y ago
    Exactly. We as a society really do not need businesses whose sole competitive advantage consists of paying lower wages than existing companies.
  - johnchristopher 11y ago
will_pseudonym 11y ago
I read a lot of great essays/articles by Marshall Brain. They're interesting, and have some interesting ideas how to fund it. I like the study of minimum income a lot since it involves questioning so many assumptions about our economy. http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
- mattlutze 11y ago
  A friend has been really trying to get me to read this ^ and I just can't finish it. Our world and species is not so noble as to roll over and quietly take it like the author's many many assumptions suggest. Nor would we be above being so petty as to start global wars to take what's AustraliaCorp's.
Matumio 11y ago
If you can read German, here is a really great article from an UBI supporter arguing against minimum wage: https://www.grundeinkommen.de/05/07/2013/warum-ein-allgemeiner-gesetzlicher-mindestlohn-nichts-mit-einem-bedingungslosen-grundeinkommen-zu-tun-hat-und-auch-sonst-nicht-unterstuetzenswert-ist.html https://www.grundeinkommen.de/05/07/2013/warum-ein-allgemein...
marklgr 11y ago
Another point of view is that the wage of the labor (eg. $5/hr) is a subjective amount coming from the negociation between the employer and the employee, and consequently their respective bargaining power. So, for some jobs, the real wage is not $10 or even $5/hr, it is effectively "the lowest amount law let an employer pay someone", due to the dramatically unbalanced negociation. In this view, minimum wages protect the poorest and most exploitable job seekers from having to accept whatever the employer with full bargaining power is willing to concede. Of course, not everyone subscribe to it and it comes with its own problems too, but it is still an important part of the debate, in my opinion.
- spand 11y ago
  It is only unbalanced as long as there is an oversupply of people seeking these jobs. With basic income there is a real chance that shitty jobs simply remain unfilled until they improve and people consider spending their life energy on it acceptable.
  - marklgr 11y ago
    For its supporters, it's a strong point of basic income: people, especially unqualified, won't have to accept pretty much any job just to get a roof over their head and some food in their plate. So this gives back some power to say "no" to the worst jobs. Opponents to basic income argue, among other things, that this is too much power and some workers would become exceedingly picky, without the fear of not being able to pay for rent and food. There definitely is a moral aspect to the question, with "anti-cheater" emotions/reactions.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > For its supporters, it's a strong point of basic income: people, especially unqualified, won't have to accept pretty much any job just to get a roof over their head and some food in their plate. I think that's important, and not just for those people: that they don't have to accept a minimal (and likely dead-end) job to survive also means that those who would be inclined to are not prevented from taking steps that prepare them for a better and not-dead end job, that is more useful both to them and society.

CookieMon 11y ago

Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index Basic income better aligns everyone's economic incentives, so it solves (in theory) a whole host of the problems we've got. It's great to hear that some form of it is going to be tried.

notahacker 11y ago
It's a pity that the proponents there have to resort to including mathematical impossibilities on their list.... "A basic income, coupled with a flat tax, is capable of mimicking all aspects of our current progressive (bracketed) taxation scheme, but without brackets." Basic income realigns people's incentives. It might be better than a really badly designed welfare system at removing "welfare traps", but it also can be expected to have a whole host of negative aspects in comparison to other possible configurations of the payment of government subsidies.
- kwhitefoot 11y ago
  > host of negative aspects Such as?
- polymatter 11y ago
  what are the "whole host of negative aspects"? I will accept that there are almost certainly edge cases which I can't predict that will need ironing out. probably due to the administration of updating the list appropriately. but basic income seems very much like the proverbial silver bullet that never exists, so I am curious over its negative aspects. in discussing with friends and family, the worst thing about basic income is it means paying people for doing nothing and that _really_ _really_ angers some people. even worse, it means even millionaires get basic income!
  - notahacker 11y ago
    most of the whole host of negative impacts depend heavily on the level that it's set and what other benefits are withdrawn, which there's very little agreement over. Low end BI with aggressive removal of other means tested subsidies generally leaves poor people looking for work much poorer; high end BI is leaves most taxpayers much poorer, whilst potentially seeing , much of the increase to people on low incomes swallowed up in increased rent. But more generally: - massive distortion of low-end wages, particularly for unpleasant, useful but not particularly revenue-generating jobs such as cleaning. Further outsourcing of manufacturing work for the same reason might be considered a negative aspect by some (especially people with moderate-to high skills related to that manufacturing) - massive skewing of wage payments away from younger people in many competitive areas of employment, because now that the taxpayer will cover living costs and assuming removal of minimum wages there's absolutely no reason to pay trainees, apprentices (or the likes of runners desperate to make it in television) any non-trivial sum until they've spend a long time "proving their worth". - regional cost-of-living differences and a guaranteed permanent income encourage former job-seekers to relocate to areas where their prospect of getting a job is minimal. This is further exacerbated if better-targeted housing benefit payments and social housing are removed from the equation. - depending on the level of BI entitlement children get they're either likely to become a lucrative income source or unaffordable in many areas, especially for single parents. - a surprising amount of BI revenue will be captured by low-end rents, and other costs that people with more cash to spend at the bottom of the pyramid can't avoid. A surprising amount of BI costs will be funded by the productive - non-citizens are inevitably going to be heavily penalised (otherwise the country becomes an migrant magnet) - many advocates use BI as an excuse to push for middle-class squeezing flattening of the tax system, withdrawal of education and health subsidies etc. - the cost of paying people who would really rather not work almost certainly vastly exceeds the cost of paying wages to people whose job it is to kick people who would really rather not work off benefit programmes. Throw in the fact that people who never had any intention of claiming benefits are now entitled to them. Like every other reform to the tax or benefit system there are a whole host of winners and losers (including people you probably don't want to be winners like "slum landlords" and the indolent, and people you probably don't want to be losers like the owners of the neighbourhood cleaning firm and hardworking immigrants). It's about as far from the proverbial silver bullet as imaginable: it's reforming existing incentives that have (for better or worse) been tested and debated for decades with a blunt instrument.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kriro 11y ago

It's one of the standard arguments against a minimum wage. What follows is that by implementing it, you inadvertently hit the early-entry work force the hardest (in the US that would typically be teenagers getting their first jobs). Apart from the general arguments against price floors and ceilings I think the other major argument against the minimum wage is that in the current systems (which a cynic could call lobby capitalism), minimum wage laws actually benefit "well connected incumbants" in low wage sectors who can use them to make market entry a lot harder for the competition. German minimum wage in the postage sector could probably serve as a decent example if memory serves me well. There's a chapter on minimum wage in "Economics in One Lesson" that picks up the argument of the parent post.

Loic 11y ago
I am living in Germany, the removal of the German minimum wage in the postage sector resulted in effectively more companies providing post service, but for the end user, the price has not changed at all. But you see a lot of people bringing the mail in nearly destroyed cars, with the look of miserable people. I am all for competition, but in this case, the net benefit for the end users is zero and it created extremely low pay jobs. The competitors of Deutsche Post are now using special structures not to pay the minimum wage to people (they are contractors) and this pushes Deutsche Post to do the same. So, for this case, it was not good. In fact, the people in Germany pushed to get a minimum wage for all employees and the right wing government accepted. It shows you how bad the lack of minimum wage was for the people.
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  The government accepted, but with a lot of loopholes for companies.
- adwn 11y ago
  Exactly. We as a society really do not need businesses whose sole competitive advantage consists of paying lower wages than existing companies.
- johnchristopher 11y ago

will_pseudonym 11y ago

I read a lot of great essays/articles by Marshall Brain. They're interesting, and have some interesting ideas how to fund it. I like the study of minimum income a lot since it involves questioning so many assumptions about our economy. http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

mattlutze 11y ago
A friend has been really trying to get me to read this ^ and I just can't finish it. Our world and species is not so noble as to roll over and quietly take it like the author's many many assumptions suggest. Nor would we be above being so petty as to start global wars to take what's AustraliaCorp's.

Matumio 11y ago

If you can read German, here is a really great article from an UBI supporter arguing against minimum wage: https://www.grundeinkommen.de/05/07/2013/warum-ein-allgemeiner-gesetzlicher-mindestlohn-nichts-mit-einem-bedingungslosen-grundeinkommen-zu-tun-hat-und-auch-sonst-nicht-unterstuetzenswert-ist.html https://www.grundeinkommen.de/05/07/2013/warum-ein-allgemein...

marklgr 11y ago

Another point of view is that the wage of the labor (eg. $5/hr) is a subjective amount coming from the negociation between the employer and the employee, and consequently their respective bargaining power. So, for some jobs, the real wage is not $10 or even $5/hr, it is effectively "the lowest amount law let an employer pay someone", due to the dramatically unbalanced negociation. In this view, minimum wages protect the poorest and most exploitable job seekers from having to accept whatever the employer with full bargaining power is willing to concede. Of course, not everyone subscribe to it and it comes with its own problems too, but it is still an important part of the debate, in my opinion.

spand 11y ago
It is only unbalanced as long as there is an oversupply of people seeking these jobs. With basic income there is a real chance that shitty jobs simply remain unfilled until they improve and people consider spending their life energy on it acceptable.
- marklgr 11y ago
  For its supporters, it's a strong point of basic income: people, especially unqualified, won't have to accept pretty much any job just to get a roof over their head and some food in their plate. So this gives back some power to say "no" to the worst jobs. Opponents to basic income argue, among other things, that this is too much power and some workers would become exceedingly picky, without the fear of not being able to pay for rent and food. There definitely is a moral aspect to the question, with "anti-cheater" emotions/reactions.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > For its supporters, it's a strong point of basic income: people, especially unqualified, won't have to accept pretty much any job just to get a roof over their head and some food in their plate. I think that's important, and not just for those people: that they don't have to accept a minimal (and likely dead-end) job to survive also means that those who would be inclined to are not prevented from taking steps that prepare them for a better and not-dead end job, that is more useful both to them and society.