7 ms·

Basic income would become a part of the whole picture, for sure. But take Norway as an example: 5 million people and around a trillion dollars in sovereign wea

by nugget 11y ago

Basic income would become a part of the whole picture, for sure. But take Norway as an example: 5 million people and around a trillion dollars in sovereign wealth, which could yield ~ $8k per person (man, woman, and child) per year in perpetuity. All Norwegian citizens now own a share of ''Norway Inc'' as their birthright and receive a healthy dividend. Now 5 million people - that isn't a lot, and it's easy to imagine that over a generation, at least another 5 million immigrants would be interested in migrating. Now we're at 10 million people and our benefit is cut in half. If we're Norwegians, does the entitlement to basic income make us a little more defensive and nationalistic than we otherwise would be? It seems that, while many forces in Europe for decades have successfully pushed towards more open borders and more flexible immigration policies (ultimately spurring GDP growth), the transition to a basic income economy (if it occurs before the developing world catches up to the west) could act as a strong headwind in the other direction.

warfangle 11y ago
On the other hand, those 5 million additional people probably aren't going to sit around doing nothing. That's not how human nature works, either - most people are happier doing something rather than nothing! Self actualization and all that. So are they going to contribute as much to the sovereign wealth that funds the basic income as the citizens? And is the basic income extended to guest workers / temporary residents as well as citizens? I would think it would be limited to citizens. So you would actually have immigrants contributing to funding basic income without benefiting from it until they obtain citizenship.
- CountSessine 11y ago
  On the other hand, those 5 million additional people probably aren't going to sit around doing nothing. That's not how human nature works, either - most people are happier doing something rather than nothing! Self actualization and all that. This is really the core assumption behind Marxism; perhaps not so much the sclerotic centrally-planned dictatorship of the proletariat 'Marxism' we saw in the 20th century as the idealized communal society that Marx envisioned, but un-monetized self-motivation is still required for either. Does that make it wrong? I don't think so; but at least we should think carefully about how we arrange incentives for work in our shining city on the hill. Even if most people aren't working, we still need for that motivated and creative minority to be putting in some hours and to be happy about it.
  - istjohn 11y ago
    Un-monetized self-motivation is not required, here. They would be have the opportunity to earn above and beyond the basic income. It's not Marxist or communal at all. We are not talking about abolishing work for pay. We are simply talking about an un-earned payment in addition to whatever they earn in conventional jobs.
    - CountSessine 11y ago
      The previous poster made the point, On the other hand, those 5 million additional people probably aren't going to sit around doing nothing. That's not how human nature works, either - most people are happier doing something rather than nothing! Self actualization and all that. I don't think that it's completely relevant to the BI debate, but what if everyone actually did just decide to sit around doing nothing?
      - existencebox 11y ago
        I think the general response is, in a real world it's never an all or nothing proposition, and even if it were, the fewer people contributing, the greater the opportunities for those who do. (greater uncontested target market share, less competition, more demand, less supply.) The economics 101 supply demand curve hopefully helps incentivize ENOUGH people at sufficient levels to do what productive work needs/is desired to be done. And if then everyone STILL decides to do nothing, I think we have bigger problems than a matter of economic policy :)
- magila 11y ago
  The majority of Norway's sovereign wealth is derived from oil exports, it does not scale with population.
r00fus 11y ago
So the basic income doesn't induce cash flow by supporting local businesses? I've heard the (not so intuitive) assertion that unemployment insurance payouts and welfare actually bring back $1.73 for each dollar the government hands out - primarily because the people who need such money are most likely to immediately spend it (and support small businesses who then buy other goods), whereas more wealthy are more likely to bank it and not circulate it back into the economy directly.

by nugget 11y ago

warfangle 11y ago

On the other hand, those 5 million additional people probably aren't going to sit around doing nothing. That's not how human nature works, either - most people are happier doing something rather than nothing! Self actualization and all that. So are they going to contribute as much to the sovereign wealth that funds the basic income as the citizens? And is the basic income extended to guest workers / temporary residents as well as citizens? I would think it would be limited to citizens. So you would actually have immigrants contributing to funding basic income without benefiting from it until they obtain citizenship.

CountSessine 11y ago
On the other hand, those 5 million additional people probably aren't going to sit around doing nothing. That's not how human nature works, either - most people are happier doing something rather than nothing! Self actualization and all that. This is really the core assumption behind Marxism; perhaps not so much the sclerotic centrally-planned dictatorship of the proletariat 'Marxism' we saw in the 20th century as the idealized communal society that Marx envisioned, but un-monetized self-motivation is still required for either. Does that make it wrong? I don't think so; but at least we should think carefully about how we arrange incentives for work in our shining city on the hill. Even if most people aren't working, we still need for that motivated and creative minority to be putting in some hours and to be happy about it.
- istjohn 11y ago
  Un-monetized self-motivation is not required, here. They would be have the opportunity to earn above and beyond the basic income. It's not Marxist or communal at all. We are not talking about abolishing work for pay. We are simply talking about an un-earned payment in addition to whatever they earn in conventional jobs.
  - CountSessine 11y ago
    The previous poster made the point, On the other hand, those 5 million additional people probably aren't going to sit around doing nothing. That's not how human nature works, either - most people are happier doing something rather than nothing! Self actualization and all that. I don't think that it's completely relevant to the BI debate, but what if everyone actually did just decide to sit around doing nothing?
    - existencebox 11y ago
      I think the general response is, in a real world it's never an all or nothing proposition, and even if it were, the fewer people contributing, the greater the opportunities for those who do. (greater uncontested target market share, less competition, more demand, less supply.) The economics 101 supply demand curve hopefully helps incentivize ENOUGH people at sufficient levels to do what productive work needs/is desired to be done. And if then everyone STILL decides to do nothing, I think we have bigger problems than a matter of economic policy :)
magila 11y ago
The majority of Norway's sovereign wealth is derived from oil exports, it does not scale with population.

r00fus 11y ago

So the basic income doesn't induce cash flow by supporting local businesses? I've heard the (not so intuitive) assertion that unemployment insurance payouts and welfare actually bring back $1.73 for each dollar the government hands out - primarily because the people who need such money are most likely to immediately spend it (and support small businesses who then buy other goods), whereas more wealthy are more likely to bank it and not circulate it back into the economy directly.