3 ms·

The disincentive should be perceived by everyone, but it's not. If I accept a lower pay job, I'm doing my part on lowering the pay for that job in the collecti

The disincentive should be perceived by everyone, but it's not. If I accept a lower pay job, I'm doing my part on lowering the pay for that job in the collective bargaining between employer/employee. You might think it's not detrimental for you, but it's detrimental for everyone who competes for that job. And, as your argument is truthful, it will become a spiral: no disincentive in accepting the $2/hr job, then no disincentive in the $1.95/hr job, then ... for n iterations until there's no disincentive in doing it for free, for the experience or the kicks. And, of course, in the end the benefit will go the usual beneficiaries.

aianus 11y ago
> until there's no disincentive in doing it for free, for the experience or the kicks. You say this like it's a bad thing. Study after study show that people perform their best creative work when it's decoupled from extrinsic reward. If basic income covers all of your needs and allows you to do what you enjoy for the sheer pleasure of it, what's wrong with that?
- mcv 11y ago
  Basic Income should be quite a bit higher then; enough for a fairly comfortable life with no serious financial worries. But then, sure, I'd work for just the fun, the pleasure and the kicks. I probably wouldn't be freelancing for banks, though. Some jobs will always require pay in order to entice people into taking those jobs.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  > what's wrong with that? What's wrong is a potential increase in income inequality and worst wealth distribution. A corporation or somebody from a upper class will be getting richer from the work being done while the guy(s) doing the work with the basic income will stay at the same level. I don't think we should increase our inequality metrics even further.
  - aianus 11y ago
    There's nothing at all wrong with wealth inequality if those at the bottom are having all of their needs met.
    - paulojreis 11y ago
      That's a fundamental premise where we disagree. Particularly in a society where most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth, inequality - for me - should be the primary target of politics.
      - merpnderp 11y ago
        Is most wealth inherited? I thought it was fairly established that after 3 generations a personal fortune is usually lost.
        paulojreis 11y ago
        Most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth. I don't know if the fact you stated is true, maybe it is, but it's not the opposite of what I said. http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article95&lang=fr#nb2 http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article95&lang=fr#nb2 http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/01/30-wealth-inheritance-mobility-sawhill http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2...
        merpnderp 11y ago
        From the linked source in the second link you provided, it states that between 35-45 of wealth is inherited. Not to be overly contentious, but that is not "most". Is your point that inherited wealth is the majority of the unfair, and socially aggravating wealth inequality that angers a large percentage of society? Because that certainly seems believable. By the way, thanks for the interesting links.
        11y ago
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  you fail to cover more than 90% of the jobs that just need to be done, and require 0 or less creativity. as an example - what I do to earn money, while enjoying it mildly as abstractly creative process (software development) is vastly different from what I do in my free time (mountaineering, travelling, general wilderness adventures). You cannot buy my vote on this with some basic 1000 USD income, if you tax high earners like hell on the other side. One thing I saw consistently all around the globe - people need motivation to give their best and try hard, only few deliver without it for sheer pleasure. It doesn't have to be monetary one, but this one is universal and quite well oiled principle. BI doesn't offer me anything - I want to work, I don't have an issue finding next job, and if there is anything between, we have working social system that helps me. What does BI offer to somebody like me?
  - ryandrake 11y ago
    > I don't have an issue finding next job ...currently. Things change, and you may one day find you do have an issue finding your next job. As someone who has been in that situation in the past, relying on a "working social system", I would much rather have guaranteed basic income to fall back on (in addition to universal health care, which is even more urgently needed where I live).
adrianN 11y ago
It's still work though. People usually don't trade their free time for pennies an hour if they have an alternative. Basic income provides that alternative, nobody has to work. This will probably lead to a increase in wages for jobs that are no fun, like cleaning restrooms in a bar, and a decrease in wages for jobs that people actually want to do.
- kwhitefoot 11y ago
  And just to hammer the point home: this is a good thing!
adaml_623 11y ago
There's a flip side to your argument. If I'm doing a job for close to 0/hr then if the job becomes crap or my manager is abusive then there is nothing keeping me there. This means that in the overall collective environment jobs that are undesirable (garbage collecting is the normal example) will actually pay more than something like being an political intern. But people could do both of these jobs and still have money for housing/food/etc.

aianus 11y ago

> until there's no disincentive in doing it for free, for the experience or the kicks. You say this like it's a bad thing. Study after study show that people perform their best creative work when it's decoupled from extrinsic reward. If basic income covers all of your needs and allows you to do what you enjoy for the sheer pleasure of it, what's wrong with that?

mcv 11y ago
Basic Income should be quite a bit higher then; enough for a fairly comfortable life with no serious financial worries. But then, sure, I'd work for just the fun, the pleasure and the kicks. I probably wouldn't be freelancing for banks, though. Some jobs will always require pay in order to entice people into taking those jobs.
paulojreis 11y ago
> what's wrong with that? What's wrong is a potential increase in income inequality and worst wealth distribution. A corporation or somebody from a upper class will be getting richer from the work being done while the guy(s) doing the work with the basic income will stay at the same level. I don't think we should increase our inequality metrics even further.
- aianus 11y ago
  There's nothing at all wrong with wealth inequality if those at the bottom are having all of their needs met.
  - paulojreis 11y ago
    That's a fundamental premise where we disagree. Particularly in a society where most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth, inequality - for me - should be the primary target of politics.
    - merpnderp 11y ago
      Is most wealth inherited? I thought it was fairly established that after 3 generations a personal fortune is usually lost.
      - paulojreis 11y ago
        Most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth. I don't know if the fact you stated is true, maybe it is, but it's not the opposite of what I said. http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article95&lang=fr#nb2 http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article95&lang=fr#nb2 http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/01/30-wealth-inheritance-mobility-sawhill http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2...
        merpnderp 11y ago
        From the linked source in the second link you provided, it states that between 35-45 of wealth is inherited. Not to be overly contentious, but that is not "most". Is your point that inherited wealth is the majority of the unfair, and socially aggravating wealth inequality that angers a large percentage of society? Because that certainly seems believable. By the way, thanks for the interesting links.
        11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
saiya-jin 11y ago
you fail to cover more than 90% of the jobs that just need to be done, and require 0 or less creativity. as an example - what I do to earn money, while enjoying it mildly as abstractly creative process (software development) is vastly different from what I do in my free time (mountaineering, travelling, general wilderness adventures). You cannot buy my vote on this with some basic 1000 USD income, if you tax high earners like hell on the other side. One thing I saw consistently all around the globe - people need motivation to give their best and try hard, only few deliver without it for sheer pleasure. It doesn't have to be monetary one, but this one is universal and quite well oiled principle. BI doesn't offer me anything - I want to work, I don't have an issue finding next job, and if there is anything between, we have working social system that helps me. What does BI offer to somebody like me?
- ryandrake 11y ago
  > I don't have an issue finding next job ...currently. Things change, and you may one day find you do have an issue finding your next job. As someone who has been in that situation in the past, relying on a "working social system", I would much rather have guaranteed basic income to fall back on (in addition to universal health care, which is even more urgently needed where I live).

adrianN 11y ago

It's still work though. People usually don't trade their free time for pennies an hour if they have an alternative. Basic income provides that alternative, nobody has to work. This will probably lead to a increase in wages for jobs that are no fun, like cleaning restrooms in a bar, and a decrease in wages for jobs that people actually want to do.

kwhitefoot 11y ago
And just to hammer the point home: this is a good thing!

adaml_623 11y ago

There's a flip side to your argument. If I'm doing a job for close to 0/hr then if the job becomes crap or my manager is abusive then there is nothing keeping me there. This means that in the overall collective environment jobs that are undesirable (garbage collecting is the normal example) will actually pay more than something like being an political intern. But people could do both of these jobs and still have money for housing/food/etc.