22 ms·

I'm cautiously enthusiastic about basic income. I want to believe that it really can change everything, until that nagging doubt of "but human nature just doesn

I'm cautiously enthusiastic about basic income. I want to believe that it really can change everything, until that nagging doubt of "but human nature just doesn't work that way!" inevitably kills the buzz. The idea behind basic income is to remove day-to-day struggle from people's lives. If only they didn't have to worry where their next rent check is coming from, then potentially a huge groundswell of human capital could rise out of nowhere and carry us all into a new age. But we don't need to actually implement basic income in order to test that out. Plenty of people already receive checks from the government every month that they live on, in exchange for no real work responsibilities. Like, a whole lot of people. There should already be a not-so-huge wave of accomplishment coming from all these people. Not to belittle them and their abilities, but there isn't. Just about everything that we consider a real advance comes from people working the system that exists using their own ingenuity, not from people allowed to escape the system by providing them an inalienable source of income. Modern Western societies are rich enough that smart, motivated individuals can mostly rise to the level of their own ability. To do better than that we need to build a better society, not just make the one we have richer. Basic income could be an important step, but it's only one step.

nilkn 11y ago
> There should already be a not-so-huge wave of accomplishment coming from all these people. Could you clarify which people specifically you're talking about? I'm not trying to disagree with you. It's just that the main examples I'm thinking of are retired folks receiving social security and people with disabilities.
- jerf 11y ago
  Many people are on physical disability who could still be doing most of the things that basic income is supposed to enable. To the extent that it limits them in some specific ways, if the basic income elevator pitch is correct, one would think that it would make what they can do even more likely to come out. This is a very interesting point I hadn't thought of, worthy of some thought. (And that's all I'm saying. I haven't had the thought time yet.)
  - lexicalscope 11y ago
    I think this might be part of the issue though - I saw another article about this plan that said people often _don't_ try to contribute because their welfare benefits are subject to them not doing certain things. For instance - you get $X from welfare, you could make $Y doing some work despite your disability, but $Y < $X, and if you make $Y, the government won't give you $X - therefore there is no reason to pursue $Y. Even if you don't have money, often if you're on disability anything that might show you aren't "so disabled" can stop it. Therefore even if you want to, there is really a strong reason not to try to do things. That is what basic income is meant to really alleviate - there becomes no reason not to do other stuff, because it's unconditional - those already on welfare no longer have all those requirements. I'm not saying it would be perfect, but I do think it would address at least part of this problem. I wish I had an actual study on the numbers of people that don't try to get jobs/be productive while on welfare because of the risk of losing the primary income stream they get from welfare, but I can't find anything. I have known several people in this situation though, and watching the system treat them that way was kind of heartbreaking.
    - jerf 11y ago
      "I saw another article about this plan that said people often _don't_ try to contribute because their welfare benefits are subject to them not doing certain things." A good point. But basic income is generally sold as an arts and hobby thing, where they're not going to make any money anyhow. Basic income participants who are going to take the money but not do a "real job" aren't going to go out and dig ditches or something. Since this isn't a binary thing, we should expect to be able to find an effect if this is going to happen, even if disability isn't evenly distributed and even if certain categories are impaired due to welfare rules. Who's on disability making art or music or something who would otherwise be stuck in a job? Alternatively, show me a work of art or something from the cases of basic income that were tried that couldn't have been done without it. (We'd really like to see a sufficiently strong pattern before we run this sort of experiment at scale, and we'd really like it to be somehow some appreciated work, but I'll start with asking just for one instance.) If doing a little of this sort of thing does not produce a little of the desired result at this scale, there is no rational reason to believe that doing more is going to produce the desired result either. (Italicized words very important. It could indeed be the case that doing more would in fact produce the desired result, but there's no data to lead you to that belief rationally.) The rational belief becomes to discard the idea that basic income is going to be used for arts and music and stuff, because we can stop speculating about what people do under those circumstances and just look. Because if basic income really is paying people to do nothing, it won't work at scale. We can't afford to pay everybody to do nothing. The economics would simply adjust such that the basic income is not a livable wage anymore via inflation mechanisms. (Which is basically one of my great fears; basic income combined with voting creates a one-way ratchet, and so far, I've heard no mechanism to even slow down the ratchet, let alone reverse it.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  That's a lot of people, and they shouldn't be left out of the discussion. Retired people and the disabled accomplish a lot of things. It's just that these are personal accomplishments. Paying someone to not have to participate in the economic system, seems to me to force them to forever remain outside of it, unless they have a rare kind of motivation, that kind of motivation would mean they didn't need the basic income to succeed in the first place.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    People still like to have more money. A job might well look more attractive if your basic needs are already covered and so you can afford to only work part time, for example. And it will certainly look more attractive if there's no monetary threshold you can cross that will yank your government benefits.
    - vinceguidry 11y ago
      I'm not opposed to basic income, and I do agree that the dynamics you're presenting might actually happen, in some cases for some people. I think though, that it's going to wind up being Just Another Government Program, if it were to be implemented in the US. There's just not enough money around to give everyone an income of more than maybe a thousand dollars a month. You'd need to really change how government finance works in order to be more generous.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        I don't understand what you mean by "wind up being Just Another Government Program." $1,000/month seems like a highly reasonable amount. It's more than Finland is proposing.
        vinceguidry 11y ago
        I may have been too generous. By an order of magnitude. The US has 320 million people living in it. $1000/month * 320 million is $3.8 trillion/year. That, weirdly enough, is the size of the entire US budget for 2016. http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-republicans-pass-3-8-trillion-dollars-2016-budget-760837 http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-republicans-pass-3-8-trill...
jonlucc 11y ago
I'm not so sure. The people who receive government checks in the US aren't the same people who would be amazing for the economy to have, which is why they're on government checks (they're either on disability or retirement).
mikeash 11y ago
The people who receive checks from the government every month are already preselected for failure. You don't get a government check at random, you get it for being disabled, for being too old to work, for being incapable of holding down any sort of job, etc. Looking at them to see how the population at large might react to basic income is not going to be informative.
- topspin 11y ago
  Right, so the new check recipients will be people that were otherwise capable of sustaining themselves, as those who aren't are already accommodated. I suspect that the 'human capital' liberated by basic income will mostly find its way to level 400 World of Warcraft Death Knights and 40 000 word critiques of Breaking Bad episodes. Should the legions of working folk try to actually use their new liberty for anything with more impact we'll ban it.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    The idea is that "sustaining themselves" isn't necessarily all that great, and there may be a lot of people out there working minimum-wage jobs barely scraping by who might be able to do something more if they were able to move beyond that. How many people out there have a way to improve their lives and move forward, but which requires more free time than their minimum-wage job allows? I suspect it's a lot.
  - namlem 11y ago
    The new check recipients who will benefit most include people who currently work, possibly at multiple jobs, but still barely earn enough to get by.
- phillc73 11y ago
  Not in every case and not in every country. I receive a government payment every month in the form of child support allowance. Everyone's entitled to it in the country where I live, as long as they have children. I hold down a job and don't believe I'm pre-selected for failure because I claim the welfare allowance I'm entitled to.
lukev 11y ago
Except that there are strong social incentives for anyone who is capable of getting a paying job and going off welfare to do so. If it were socially acceptable for an artist, scientist or entrepreneur to fall back on "welfare" for some amount of time to work on a project, improve themselves or bootstrap a startup, I think you'd see that more often (including outcomes that end up contributing back to society. Which is why basic income is such a good idea. If it's unconditional, and not tied to an assertion that "I am poor and cannot feed myself otherwise", I think you'll start to see more capable people leverage it for uses other than basic survival. It still doesn't answer the question of whether that investment (as a society) would pay off, but its a fair bet that it would at least be a different group of people leveraging it.
- AlexandrB 11y ago
  Yes! I think you've captured the idea perfectly. It also removes much of the administrative cost of other types of welfare. Cost that's a product of highly complicated rules for who deserves how much welfare.
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    My point is that basic income should be treated as a welfare program, not as a stimulus package. We are bound to be disappointed in the ROI of basic income if we are looking for it to accelerate social evolution all by itself.
    - thwarted 11y ago
      This is a good point. I'd go so far to label it a "social program", because even "welfare program" is a loaded term.
- jonwachob91 11y ago
  I don't think he's referencing welfare but programs such as disability. It's not a knock against those with serious disabilities that prevent them from working, but the individuals who sham the system to collect $3k /month in disability pay for their diabetes, and refuse to work. We ALL know someone with diabetes who doesn't sham, but there are lots who do.
dibujante 11y ago
The counter-argument is that those cheques stop if those people start working. In a worst-case scenario, you can end up with a "dead zone" where you make the same amount of money working 30 hours a week at a poorly-paying job as you get doing absolutely nothing. Why not do absolutely nothing, then? Advocates of UBI stress that the non-means-tested nature of these benefits prevents them from causing that trap. Even if you're only working for a penny, that's an extra penny minus tax that you keep.
- white-flame 11y ago
  Nobody would work those jobs, but on the other hand those jobs exist because companies need that work done. That's what closes the feedback loop and would raise wages to meed their need for basic actual human work. It's an unfamiliar system, but it seems crazy enough to have a chance. At the very least, it's FAR simpler to run than welfare, because it wouldn't need to be qualified and policed. Those issues are involved in the creation of a crime (cheating welfare) that needn't exist at all under BI.
  - meric 11y ago
    Immigrants who aren't eligible for welfare yet, would.
gnaritas 11y ago
> he idea behind basic income is to remove day-to-day struggle from people's lives. If only they didn't have to worry where their next rent check is coming from, then potentially a huge groundswell of human capital could rise out of nowhere and carry us all into a new age. That is not at all what basic income is about. The point of basic income is not as a means to enable anything; it's a natural byproduct of and solution to a problem, the problem of ever increasing automation removing the need for human labor. There will come a time when exchanging labor for capital is no longer a workable system because the demand for human labor will have collapsed due to automation and robots doing everything. Thus without the ability to sell labor, most people no longer have capital with which to participate in an economy. That's what basic income is meant to solve. It's in no way meant to release human capital to foster in a new age, it's meant to allow humans to live in a new age where labor simply isn't necessary and thus labor based economies no longer exist.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  > The point of basic income is not as a means to enable anything; it's a natural byproduct of and solution to a problem, the problem of ever increasing automation removing the need for human labor. I disagree. Humans tend to create new market segments in response to this problem. Service jobs, creative jobs, people are remarkably effective at finding ways to be productive. Basic income almost seems like a measure focused on finding ways for people to be unproductive. Do you seriously think automation means less human labor is needed? I can think of dozens of segments out there that could really use more human capital. Automation means less labor is needed to produce certain kinds of goods. We can always find things for people to do.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > I disagree. Humans tend to create new market segments in response to this problem. You can disagree if you like, but you're relying on the past to make your presumption that humans will just create more markets; the future of automation isn't like the past, future automation will include AI and is already doing so. AI changes the game, the future is not like the past, humans won't just do something else. Labor based economies must end at some point, there simply won't be enough demand for labor to keep an economy going. > Do you seriously think automation means less human labor is needed? If you don't, you're not paying attention to the world. > Automation means less labor is needed to produce certain kinds of goods. We can always find things for people to do. Absolutely wrong; the automation that is coming will leave little for people to do as it'll always be cheaper to have a machine do it and an intelligent machine will be able to do anything a human can. All goods, all services, not just "certain kinds" will be done by machines; your doctor will be a machine, your housekeeper, masseuse, waitress, all of them, robots. The idea that there's always going to be some way to sell your own labor is antiquated and wrong; basic income is meant as a solution to the collapse of labor markets that is coming from our continued increases in production via automation, and it is coming, and no, there won't be some other job you can do... machines will do all the jobs. Humans will leisure or find other means to feel productive but goods and services will not be distributed by means of a labor based economy. The labor based economies of the world are on their deathbeds; we're currently calling this structural unemployment due to globalization, it's all the same problem, the future isn't based on human labor or labor based economies.
manyoso 11y ago
No, this is wrong. The people already receiving government checks do so with a stipulation: if you start receiving money from anyone else besides the government, then the government will stop sending checks! This works to disincentivize people from contributing their time and effort to the economy for fear they will lose the "basic income" that the government provides. A real basic income is different: the governments says here is a check that should meet all your basic needs and then some and please feel free to do whatever you want with your time, including contributing it to the economy by starting a company, interviewing for a job you actually want, or what have you.
lftl 11y ago
> Plenty of people already receive checks from the government every month that they live on. Like, a whole lot of people. There should already be a not-so-huge wave of accomplishment coming from all these people. Not to belittle them and their abilities, but there isn't. I'm not well versed in the structure of European welfare systems, but when you look at the US welfare system there are some absolutely perverse incentives that discourage people from working their way out of it. Numerous programs have a sharp income cliff: make more than $x and you no longer get this benefit at all. I have talked to people who have quit a job because they got a promotion and would no longer receive benefits to help pay for the place they were currently renting. It's bewildering to me that there's no political will on either side to fix this. All it would take is requiring graduated income checks so for every $1 you make more in wages you lose less than $1 of benefits. So I have some optimism for basic income that if you have a truly inalienable source of income with no strings attached that it'll open up a ton of creativity and value.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  > All it would take is requiring graduated income checks so for every $1 you make more in wages you lose less than $1 of benefits. Or just universal benefits and a progressive income tax, then you don't have to have the bureaucratic machinery of the means tested welfare state.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    That doesn't seem an alternative, so much as it seems one potential (particularly smooth) approach.
    - SixSigma 11y ago
      I meant instead of $1 in $1 off - too much work.
      - dllthomas 11y ago
        lftl said, "All it would take is requiring graduated income checks so for every $1 you make more in wages you lose less than $1 of benefits." A progressive income tax (or even a flat tax, really) is a special case of that, with income checks maximally graduated and always stripping your benefits of less than a dollar for every dollar.
benten10 11y ago
A really good example to look at is (apparently) the case of how Arab migrants feel 'included' in Belgium vs. in Canada. Apparently, in Belgium, the welfare system is targeted towards providing financial incentives to less-fortunate people, awhile the Canadian welfare system is more directed towards 'fulfilling life'. Apparently a lot of immigrants to Belgium migrate to Canada even if they make more 'free' money in Belgium, because of this reason. Tyler Cowen's written a bit about it, and you might need to look it up, but I found it verrry interesting.
- stcredzero 11y ago
  Searching "Tyler Cowen Belgium Canada" isn't being helpful. Could you post a link?
  - benten10 11y ago
    I meant Chris Blattman, oops! Money quote from the link: Here is Verwimp: Belgium has a very elaborate welfare state. All citizens have health coverage, schools and universities charge no or few fees, child benefits, unemployment benefits, pensions, are all in place. But this comes at a cost of a closed labour market, meaning a labour system that heavily protects those who are in, but makes entry for newcomers very difficult. It does not seem to be poverty, but exclusion. Philip wrote to me: One of my students from African origin, graduating from our MA program, told me (before the Paris attacks) « it is easier to get unemployment benefits in Belgium than to get a job ». He decided to move to Canada. That summarises it. Migrants and their families have full access to the allocations of the welfare state, but face daunting challenges when they want to get ahead in life. …I am not looking at individual factors to join IS, as young adults across European cities many share similar reasons, but for ‘structural’ factors that make the situation different in some countries compared to others. Here's the link I saw the other day: https://chrisblattman.com/2015/12/01/this-graph-says-the-welfare-state-is-to-blame-for-belgian-isis-recruitment/ https://chrisblattman.com/2015/12/01/this-graph-says-the-wel...
- benten10 11y ago
  Here's the link (I meant Chris Blattman, not Tyler Cowen. Sorry for misleading, people!): https://chrisblattman.com/2015/12/01/this-graph-says-the-welfare-state-is-to-blame-for-belgian-isis-recruitment/ https://chrisblattman.com/2015/12/01/this-graph-says-the-wel...
Shivetya 11y ago
The balance is finding the amount of assistance that reaches two points, reducing requesting even more aid and removing the tendency to want to take another persons stuff. I believe that this is one of those long term deals, it won't be the first generation which learns to live with it but following generations will. By the third it should be entrenched and cultural norms will be that you don't another persons stuff and your needs are met. As of right now there is too much opportunity to game the system which in itself requires a much more robust system within the government to track all the aid dollars it spends. The danger is that this will force a move away from physical money. This is because it allows government to manipulate the money you have. It leads to totalitarian control as they can simply outlaw an activity by preventing expenditures on it. So in the end the money will need to be independent of the governments as well. (it will be sold to stop terrorists, drug dealers, and other "bad" people)
Retric 11y ago
The US is a fairly poor example of this as you must be disabled, looking for a job, retired, or raising kids to qualify for long term assistance. And creating something of value is a great way to be kicked off the system and sometimes have to pay that money back. The EU model is closer to basic income and Harry Potter is one example that does show up from that well. There are actually quite a few works of art made by people 'on the dole'.
api 11y ago
You can live on basic income and/or welfare, but not all that well. You'll be poor. You'll be living in a bad neighborhood or a crummy tiny apartment and won't be able to buy very much. Most ambitious people -- the people who have personality characteristics that lead them to achieve interesting things -- want more than this. As a result, most are not willing to live exclusively on the dole. The thing a basic income might accomplish is to allow people to make path changes. As it stands a person's well being is directly tied to their income and very few people make enough or can live debt-free enough to save enough "FU money" to take any length of time off without severely threatening their future (e.g. eating retirement savings). Basic income would allow people to take a step back and reevaluate whether their current path is best. Welfare is needs-based not wants-based. It doesn't do that. Personally I think a minimal basic income could go a long way toward eliminating bullshit jobs. A bullshit job is any job that if (hypothetically) eliminated while the person is still paid, nobody would be poorer in any tangible way. It's a job that does not actually need to be done and doesn't actually benefit anyone. Since our society depends on jobs to move money around, bullshit jobs must continue to exist even when those doing them know they are doing nothing of value. Basic income would allow them to make the intelligent decision to stop doing meaningless and valueless work. I think the experiment should be done. I'm not sure if it's going to work but there's only one way to find out.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  > You'll be poor. Most people are poor. > Most ambitious people Most people are not ambitious. > Personally I think a minimal basic income could go a long way toward eliminating bullshit jobs Is that something we really want? I read an article a few months ago about a government program that literally created bullshit jobs for willing, unemployed people to go to so they could keep up their skills. People who went through the program reported increased feelings of well-being from the conjured-up sense of purpose. Personally, I'd prefer a bullshit job over no job. Hell, even in a non-bullshit job, there are plenty of things that come with it that are bullshit.
  - goldbrick 11y ago
    > Personally, I'd prefer a bullshit job over no job. You realize of course that this runs completely counter to your whinging about supposed freeloaders.
fweespeech 11y ago
> Plenty of people already receive checks from the government every month that they live on, in exchange for no real work responsibilities. Like, a whole lot of people. There should already be a not-so-huge wave of accomplishment coming from all these people. That isn't the same as no responsibilities. > Modern Western societies are rich enough that smart, motivated individuals can mostly rise to the level of their own ability. Capitalism isn't a meritocracy and hasn't been for some time (if ever). Basic income (along with other ideas intended to improve the value of human capital) helps level the field so people can focus on things like a better education, etc. Frankly, I think we need to focus more on providing access to better education (e.g. Free community college, technical schools, bachelor degrees) with reasonable application restrictions (e.g. Fields with low demand such as many Art/soft skill majors should have caps on how many free degrees are available while fields with high demand should be uncapped). I think that'd get us alot further than basic income would in regards to your criticism. HOWEVER, basic income isn't primarily about improving human capital...its just one of the reasons: http://www.salon.com/2014/03/19/5_reasons_to_consider_a_no_strings_attached_basic_income_for_all_americans_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2014/03/19/5_reasons_to_consider_a_no_s... 1) Reduces poverty 2) Stabilizes aggregate demand since people who are primarily relying on it for income are going to spend it on goods/services for survival. 3) Certain social ills (e.g. Domestic abuse) are reduced as its easier to escape bad situations. Children are more likely to finish high school. 4) It is more efficient in terms of dollars spent than existing programs (except Social Security) 5) Human dignity
Ao7bei3s 11y ago
Unemployment benefits just aren't like basic income. At all. 1. They're barely enough to feed yourself and pay for rent, if even. Nothing more. 2. The authorities keep you busy filing paperwork and sending applications for awful jobs. Don't meet your quota, miss a deadline, don't make a meeting, or refuse any job (even if quite beneath your qualification), and your benefits are cut. 3. If you're unemployed, long-term planning is impossible. 4. Higher education is not available. Job training may or may not be. I suspect that most unemployed are by and large less educated -- so what do you expect? Basic income would allow education. And that may, as you put it, carry us into a new age. Disclaimer: I only know about the situation in Germany, and only from (educated, but not IT) acquaintances, not personal experience.
- WalterSear 11y ago
  It's worse in the US. It's essentially beer money.
  - r00fus 11y ago
    Cite?
    - WalterSear 11y ago
      Been on unemployment.
  - jpindar 11y ago
    You must drink a lot of beer. The maximum unemployment in Massachusetts, for instance, is over $700 a week. Even in New Hampshire it's over $400.
- paulddraper 11y ago
  If the only jobs you can get are ones "quite beneath your qualification", you might rethink the reality of those career qualifications.
rpgmaker 11y ago
Awful example. People can't barely get by with those govt checks (at least in the US).
keithba 11y ago
>> There should already be a not-so-huge wave of accomplishment coming from all these people. Not to belittle them and their abilities, but there isn't. Two thoughts here: 1) What specifically do you mean by "wave of accomplishment"? How should that be measured? 2) You will need to cite some proof of this assertion. I can think of many anecdotes of successful people (J.K. Rowling, for instance) who achieved success while on welfare. >>Modern Western societies are rich enough that smart, motivated individuals can mostly rise to the level of their own ability. Not sure this true, but I'd like to see any data you have on this point as well. As it stands, social and economic mobility is limited by birth, see http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2015/07/economic-mobility-in-the-united-states http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/20...
CaptSpify 11y ago
> I'm cautiously enthusiastic about basic income. I want to believe that it really can change everything, until that nagging doubt of "but human nature just doesn't work that way!" inevitably kills the buzz. I'm the same way. I'm excited that we as a species are testing it out, but I'm also glad that it's not my direct economy it's being tested on. I really hope it's successful, and I think it can be, but it's also quite risky.
hvfhhvv 11y ago
You are missing the fact that being poor does not just effect the current generation. The stress induced by living on low income lowers the prospects of the children of these families. Which in turn effects the prospects of the children of the children. The effects of stress are pronounced and greatly effect both quality of life and productivity. Universal income seeks to reduce this stress and give eryone a fairer shot at life. If you think living on benefits is easy you should try it for a couple of months.
Florin_Andrei 11y ago
> Plenty of people already receive checks from the government every month that they live on, in exchange for no real work responsibilities. Like, a whole lot of people. There should already be a not-so-huge wave of accomplishment coming from all these people. Not to belittle them and their abilities, but there isn't. There's some kind of selection bias there already. I'm not saying those people were not creative, passionate, hard-working to begin with. But many have ended up in that situation after going through things that tend to, well, crush you, for lack of a better word.
Grishnakh 11y ago
Two big points about BI: 1) You seem to be thinking of idealist communism, where everyone gets the same paycheck no matter what they do. BI is not like that. The idea with BI is that you get a basic income for nothing. It's just that: basic. Not luxurious, not even very good. Enough to live in a crappy little apartment with a roommate maybe. The incentive to do better is simple: do you want to live in a crappy apartment with roommates, or do you want something better? If you want more than the basic, then you need to get a job. 2) For the "not-so-huge wave of accomplishment", you're missing something pretty big: crime. All those lower-class people getting checks from the government may not be accomplishing much, but they're generally not committing crimes, and as a result, our crime rates are at historically low levels despite what the sensational news media would have you believe. Now why aren't they accomplishing more? Probably because most more-capable people aren't on welfare, they're gainfully employed. But you're also missing other stuff: a lot of these people getting government checks DO work, they just do it under-the-table. They do odd jobs: home repair, yard work, etc., and get paid in cash so they don't lose their check. The government may not like this, but it does add to the economy, and it shows that BI is a workable concept: these people frequently DO want to work, but for whatever reason, regular full-time employment escapes them, either because there's not enough full-time work available (and part-time doesn't pay the bills because there's no benefits and the minimum wage is too low, so they stick with welfare and under-the-table work), or because they have some physical or mental problems that keep them from holding down a regular job. Whatever the reason, most people really do want to make more money than the bare minimum, you just don't see it because it's cash-based and not reported to the IRS.
pakled_engineer 11y ago
You would have to triple welfare payments in order to test if idle people do great things as currently most people can't live off the paltry payments welfare gives. There's also hoops galore to jump through every month like applying for X amount of jobs and getting the interviewers to vouch you did in order to receive another cheque. BI means you can afford to live. Welfare gives you a spot on a waiting list to get into a SRO dump full of drug addicts and $100 remainder to eat, buy hygiene products, and transportation for a month. Nobody can live off that so going to loan sharks, doing under the table exploitative labor and daily hustling are needed at least here in Canada.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
I think an important step is to identify the critical pieces of work that need to occur in order to maintain whatever standard of living a basic income is expected to provide. Then, you need to somehow ensure that the work that is needed to be done is actually done.
vijayr 11y ago
It all depends on what we as a society value most. At this point, we (most of us) are forced to work/do things that we aren't passionate about (or even interested in) just to earn a very very basic lifestyle. Imagine a huge part of the population doesn't have to worry about it anymore, as opposed to a small percentage of the population on welfare now. People would start valuing other things more like artistic abilities etc. How many artists have gone into fields that they have no interest in, just to earn a living? They might go back to creating art, writing books and so on. At least, that is my dream :P Whether this experiment succeeds or not, it is well worth trying. Finland is a very good bet to start this experiment because of it's small size, homogeneous population etc. It would be very difficult to do such an experiment in big, diverse countries like the U.S
intopieces 11y ago
> Plenty of people already receive checks from the government every month that they live on, in exchange for no real work responsibilities. There should already be a not-so-huge wave of accomplishment coming from all these people. [...] but there isn't But that's no surprise -- the reason they're receiving the money in the first place is because they are unable to work in some capacity. It's need-based (old age, disability, etc.). The basic income system would give it to everyone, widening the demographic considerably. >Just about everything that we consider a real advance comes from people working the system that exists using their own ingenuity, not from people allowed to escape the system by providing them an inalienable source of income. It's not at all clear that lack of guaranteed income plays a roll in the 'ingenuity' of the working population. In fact, if we look at the extreme examples, founders of highly successful businesses often had significant family income that allowed them to accomplish what they have.
aphelion 11y ago
I'm always a little mystified by those who believe there is some vast pool of people receiving something called "welfare" that pays them munificent sums to sit around all day not working. There is no "welfare". There's SNAP(food stamps) with a princely average payment of $125, which has time limits on eligibility and mostly goes to working households. There's TANF which only goes to households with children and has both time limits on eligibility and work requirements. What there absolutely is not is some sort of program where millions of people are paid to sit around think of ways to build a better mousetrap. The idea that there is remains one of those pernicious myths that just won't seem to die.
- flubert 11y ago
  >What there absolutely is not is some sort of program where millions of people are paid to sit around https://www.ssa.gov/agency/performance/2016/FINAL_2014_2016_APR_508_compliant.pdf https://www.ssa.gov/agency/performance/2016/FINAL_2014_2016_...
  - aphelion 11y ago
    Case in point. Social Security is OASDI - old age, survivors, and disability insurance. It's not a guaranteed income for the general population, it's meant to provide support to those incapable of working due to age or disability.
hyperpallium 11y ago
Also, past aristocrats. Many (the only?) scientists were aristocrats. But most of them did nothing but, at most, develop byzantine courtly fashion. Basic income will probably yield a similar proportion of doers. In a wider perspective, life has become easier for humans over the last 15,000 years. Does this mean we are less motivated; or have more energy available for non-immediate needs?
- notahacker 11y ago
  Never mind historic aristocrats, what about the stay-at-home spouses, adult offspring and other working-age dependents of today's moderately well off? What do they do with their time? It's a pretty pertinent question if we're about to extend financial benefits previously only paid to people at least notionally looking for (or unable to) work to this much larger group of working age people who hitherto haven't signalled that they actually need the money...
lifeisstillgood 11y ago
But ... They do. When I was younger I lived off the (UK) state for a while. I ran political campaigns to protect our right to silence, volunteered nightly at a suicide hotline and worked on clean water projects. Friends of mine produced artwork and installations. Eventually we all got proper jobs, some making iron-sculptures for a living, some putting on weight in offices. But a lot of productive work was done. Now we were in our early twenties, we would have done something, but I remember my room-mate staggering in from a dead end job and slumping down as I went off to my second "volunteer" job. It seemed far more acceptable 20 years ago to do this but most humans will do something meaningful with their lives if the next few months rent is sorted out. It's the worry about where next weeks meals and shelter are coming from that limit most people's horizons, not a in are lack of artistry or passion in their soul.
camikazeg 11y ago
There are also plenty of children of wealthy families that essentially receive checks from their parents every month that they live on, in exchange for no real work responsibilities. I would say that there's a fair sized wave of accomplishment coming out of this group. Has Zuckerberg ever had to have a real job? They are both cherry picked groups, and have vastly different backgrounds that affect their level of productivity. Giving everyone $8,000 per year would have vastly different results for different people. It's hard to say what the net effect would be.

nilkn 11y ago

> There should already be a not-so-huge wave of accomplishment coming from all these people. Could you clarify which people specifically you're talking about? I'm not trying to disagree with you. It's just that the main examples I'm thinking of are retired folks receiving social security and people with disabilities.

jerf 11y ago
Many people are on physical disability who could still be doing most of the things that basic income is supposed to enable. To the extent that it limits them in some specific ways, if the basic income elevator pitch is correct, one would think that it would make what they can do even more likely to come out. This is a very interesting point I hadn't thought of, worthy of some thought. (And that's all I'm saying. I haven't had the thought time yet.)
- lexicalscope 11y ago
  I think this might be part of the issue though - I saw another article about this plan that said people often _don't_ try to contribute because their welfare benefits are subject to them not doing certain things. For instance - you get $X from welfare, you could make $Y doing some work despite your disability, but $Y < $X, and if you make $Y, the government won't give you $X - therefore there is no reason to pursue $Y. Even if you don't have money, often if you're on disability anything that might show you aren't "so disabled" can stop it. Therefore even if you want to, there is really a strong reason not to try to do things. That is what basic income is meant to really alleviate - there becomes no reason not to do other stuff, because it's unconditional - those already on welfare no longer have all those requirements. I'm not saying it would be perfect, but I do think it would address at least part of this problem. I wish I had an actual study on the numbers of people that don't try to get jobs/be productive while on welfare because of the risk of losing the primary income stream they get from welfare, but I can't find anything. I have known several people in this situation though, and watching the system treat them that way was kind of heartbreaking.
  - jerf 11y ago
    "I saw another article about this plan that said people often _don't_ try to contribute because their welfare benefits are subject to them not doing certain things." A good point. But basic income is generally sold as an arts and hobby thing, where they're not going to make any money anyhow. Basic income participants who are going to take the money but not do a "real job" aren't going to go out and dig ditches or something. Since this isn't a binary thing, we should expect to be able to find an effect if this is going to happen, even if disability isn't evenly distributed and even if certain categories are impaired due to welfare rules. Who's on disability making art or music or something who would otherwise be stuck in a job? Alternatively, show me a work of art or something from the cases of basic income that were tried that couldn't have been done without it. (We'd really like to see a sufficiently strong pattern before we run this sort of experiment at scale, and we'd really like it to be somehow some appreciated work, but I'll start with asking just for one instance.) If doing a little of this sort of thing does not produce a little of the desired result at this scale, there is no rational reason to believe that doing more is going to produce the desired result either. (Italicized words very important. It could indeed be the case that doing more would in fact produce the desired result, but there's no data to lead you to that belief rationally.) The rational belief becomes to discard the idea that basic income is going to be used for arts and music and stuff, because we can stop speculating about what people do under those circumstances and just look. Because if basic income really is paying people to do nothing, it won't work at scale. We can't afford to pay everybody to do nothing. The economics would simply adjust such that the basic income is not a livable wage anymore via inflation mechanisms. (Which is basically one of my great fears; basic income combined with voting creates a one-way ratchet, and so far, I've heard no mechanism to even slow down the ratchet, let alone reverse it.)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vinceguidry 11y ago
That's a lot of people, and they shouldn't be left out of the discussion. Retired people and the disabled accomplish a lot of things. It's just that these are personal accomplishments. Paying someone to not have to participate in the economic system, seems to me to force them to forever remain outside of it, unless they have a rare kind of motivation, that kind of motivation would mean they didn't need the basic income to succeed in the first place.
- mikeash 11y ago
  People still like to have more money. A job might well look more attractive if your basic needs are already covered and so you can afford to only work part time, for example. And it will certainly look more attractive if there's no monetary threshold you can cross that will yank your government benefits.
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    I'm not opposed to basic income, and I do agree that the dynamics you're presenting might actually happen, in some cases for some people. I think though, that it's going to wind up being Just Another Government Program, if it were to be implemented in the US. There's just not enough money around to give everyone an income of more than maybe a thousand dollars a month. You'd need to really change how government finance works in order to be more generous.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I don't understand what you mean by "wind up being Just Another Government Program." $1,000/month seems like a highly reasonable amount. It's more than Finland is proposing.
      - vinceguidry 11y ago
        I may have been too generous. By an order of magnitude. The US has 320 million people living in it. $1000/month * 320 million is $3.8 trillion/year. That, weirdly enough, is the size of the entire US budget for 2016. http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-republicans-pass-3-8-trillion-dollars-2016-budget-760837 http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-republicans-pass-3-8-trill...

jonlucc 11y ago

I'm not so sure. The people who receive government checks in the US aren't the same people who would be amazing for the economy to have, which is why they're on government checks (they're either on disability or retirement).

mikeash 11y ago

The people who receive checks from the government every month are already preselected for failure. You don't get a government check at random, you get it for being disabled, for being too old to work, for being incapable of holding down any sort of job, etc. Looking at them to see how the population at large might react to basic income is not going to be informative.

topspin 11y ago
Right, so the new check recipients will be people that were otherwise capable of sustaining themselves, as those who aren't are already accommodated. I suspect that the 'human capital' liberated by basic income will mostly find its way to level 400 World of Warcraft Death Knights and 40 000 word critiques of Breaking Bad episodes. Should the legions of working folk try to actually use their new liberty for anything with more impact we'll ban it.
- mikeash 11y ago
  The idea is that "sustaining themselves" isn't necessarily all that great, and there may be a lot of people out there working minimum-wage jobs barely scraping by who might be able to do something more if they were able to move beyond that. How many people out there have a way to improve their lives and move forward, but which requires more free time than their minimum-wage job allows? I suspect it's a lot.
- namlem 11y ago
  The new check recipients who will benefit most include people who currently work, possibly at multiple jobs, but still barely earn enough to get by.
phillc73 11y ago
Not in every case and not in every country. I receive a government payment every month in the form of child support allowance. Everyone's entitled to it in the country where I live, as long as they have children. I hold down a job and don't believe I'm pre-selected for failure because I claim the welfare allowance I'm entitled to.

lukev 11y ago

Except that there are strong social incentives for anyone who is capable of getting a paying job and going off welfare to do so. If it were socially acceptable for an artist, scientist or entrepreneur to fall back on "welfare" for some amount of time to work on a project, improve themselves or bootstrap a startup, I think you'd see that more often (including outcomes that end up contributing back to society. Which is why basic income is such a good idea. If it's unconditional, and not tied to an assertion that "I am poor and cannot feed myself otherwise", I think you'll start to see more capable people leverage it for uses other than basic survival. It still doesn't answer the question of whether that investment (as a society) would pay off, but its a fair bet that it would at least be a different group of people leveraging it.

AlexandrB 11y ago
Yes! I think you've captured the idea perfectly. It also removes much of the administrative cost of other types of welfare. Cost that's a product of highly complicated rules for who deserves how much welfare.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  My point is that basic income should be treated as a welfare program, not as a stimulus package. We are bound to be disappointed in the ROI of basic income if we are looking for it to accelerate social evolution all by itself.
  - thwarted 11y ago
    This is a good point. I'd go so far to label it a "social program", because even "welfare program" is a loaded term.
jonwachob91 11y ago
I don't think he's referencing welfare but programs such as disability. It's not a knock against those with serious disabilities that prevent them from working, but the individuals who sham the system to collect $3k /month in disability pay for their diabetes, and refuse to work. We ALL know someone with diabetes who doesn't sham, but there are lots who do.

dibujante 11y ago

The counter-argument is that those cheques stop if those people start working. In a worst-case scenario, you can end up with a "dead zone" where you make the same amount of money working 30 hours a week at a poorly-paying job as you get doing absolutely nothing. Why not do absolutely nothing, then? Advocates of UBI stress that the non-means-tested nature of these benefits prevents them from causing that trap. Even if you're only working for a penny, that's an extra penny minus tax that you keep.

white-flame 11y ago
Nobody would work those jobs, but on the other hand those jobs exist because companies need that work done. That's what closes the feedback loop and would raise wages to meed their need for basic actual human work. It's an unfamiliar system, but it seems crazy enough to have a chance. At the very least, it's FAR simpler to run than welfare, because it wouldn't need to be qualified and policed. Those issues are involved in the creation of a crime (cheating welfare) that needn't exist at all under BI.
- meric 11y ago
  Immigrants who aren't eligible for welfare yet, would.

gnaritas 11y ago

> he idea behind basic income is to remove day-to-day struggle from people's lives. If only they didn't have to worry where their next rent check is coming from, then potentially a huge groundswell of human capital could rise out of nowhere and carry us all into a new age. That is not at all what basic income is about. The point of basic income is not as a means to enable anything; it's a natural byproduct of and solution to a problem, the problem of ever increasing automation removing the need for human labor. There will come a time when exchanging labor for capital is no longer a workable system because the demand for human labor will have collapsed due to automation and robots doing everything. Thus without the ability to sell labor, most people no longer have capital with which to participate in an economy. That's what basic income is meant to solve. It's in no way meant to release human capital to foster in a new age, it's meant to allow humans to live in a new age where labor simply isn't necessary and thus labor based economies no longer exist.

vinceguidry 11y ago
> The point of basic income is not as a means to enable anything; it's a natural byproduct of and solution to a problem, the problem of ever increasing automation removing the need for human labor. I disagree. Humans tend to create new market segments in response to this problem. Service jobs, creative jobs, people are remarkably effective at finding ways to be productive. Basic income almost seems like a measure focused on finding ways for people to be unproductive. Do you seriously think automation means less human labor is needed? I can think of dozens of segments out there that could really use more human capital. Automation means less labor is needed to produce certain kinds of goods. We can always find things for people to do.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > I disagree. Humans tend to create new market segments in response to this problem. You can disagree if you like, but you're relying on the past to make your presumption that humans will just create more markets; the future of automation isn't like the past, future automation will include AI and is already doing so. AI changes the game, the future is not like the past, humans won't just do something else. Labor based economies must end at some point, there simply won't be enough demand for labor to keep an economy going. > Do you seriously think automation means less human labor is needed? If you don't, you're not paying attention to the world. > Automation means less labor is needed to produce certain kinds of goods. We can always find things for people to do. Absolutely wrong; the automation that is coming will leave little for people to do as it'll always be cheaper to have a machine do it and an intelligent machine will be able to do anything a human can. All goods, all services, not just "certain kinds" will be done by machines; your doctor will be a machine, your housekeeper, masseuse, waitress, all of them, robots. The idea that there's always going to be some way to sell your own labor is antiquated and wrong; basic income is meant as a solution to the collapse of labor markets that is coming from our continued increases in production via automation, and it is coming, and no, there won't be some other job you can do... machines will do all the jobs. Humans will leisure or find other means to feel productive but goods and services will not be distributed by means of a labor based economy. The labor based economies of the world are on their deathbeds; we're currently calling this structural unemployment due to globalization, it's all the same problem, the future isn't based on human labor or labor based economies.

manyoso 11y ago

No, this is wrong. The people already receiving government checks do so with a stipulation: if you start receiving money from anyone else besides the government, then the government will stop sending checks! This works to disincentivize people from contributing their time and effort to the economy for fear they will lose the "basic income" that the government provides. A real basic income is different: the governments says here is a check that should meet all your basic needs and then some and please feel free to do whatever you want with your time, including contributing it to the economy by starting a company, interviewing for a job you actually want, or what have you.

lftl 11y ago

> Plenty of people already receive checks from the government every month that they live on. Like, a whole lot of people. There should already be a not-so-huge wave of accomplishment coming from all these people. Not to belittle them and their abilities, but there isn't. I'm not well versed in the structure of European welfare systems, but when you look at the US welfare system there are some absolutely perverse incentives that discourage people from working their way out of it. Numerous programs have a sharp income cliff: make more than $x and you no longer get this benefit at all. I have talked to people who have quit a job because they got a promotion and would no longer receive benefits to help pay for the place they were currently renting. It's bewildering to me that there's no political will on either side to fix this. All it would take is requiring graduated income checks so for every $1 you make more in wages you lose less than $1 of benefits. So I have some optimism for basic income that if you have a truly inalienable source of income with no strings attached that it'll open up a ton of creativity and value.

SixSigma 11y ago
> All it would take is requiring graduated income checks so for every $1 you make more in wages you lose less than $1 of benefits. Or just universal benefits and a progressive income tax, then you don't have to have the bureaucratic machinery of the means tested welfare state.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  That doesn't seem an alternative, so much as it seems one potential (particularly smooth) approach.
  - SixSigma 11y ago
    I meant instead of $1 in $1 off - too much work.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      lftl said, "All it would take is requiring graduated income checks so for every $1 you make more in wages you lose less than $1 of benefits." A progressive income tax (or even a flat tax, really) is a special case of that, with income checks maximally graduated and always stripping your benefits of less than a dollar for every dollar.

benten10 11y ago

A really good example to look at is (apparently) the case of how Arab migrants feel 'included' in Belgium vs. in Canada. Apparently, in Belgium, the welfare system is targeted towards providing financial incentives to less-fortunate people, awhile the Canadian welfare system is more directed towards 'fulfilling life'. Apparently a lot of immigrants to Belgium migrate to Canada even if they make more 'free' money in Belgium, because of this reason. Tyler Cowen's written a bit about it, and you might need to look it up, but I found it verrry interesting.

stcredzero 11y ago
Searching "Tyler Cowen Belgium Canada" isn't being helpful. Could you post a link?
- benten10 11y ago
  I meant Chris Blattman, oops! Money quote from the link: Here is Verwimp: Belgium has a very elaborate welfare state. All citizens have health coverage, schools and universities charge no or few fees, child benefits, unemployment benefits, pensions, are all in place. But this comes at a cost of a closed labour market, meaning a labour system that heavily protects those who are in, but makes entry for newcomers very difficult. It does not seem to be poverty, but exclusion. Philip wrote to me: One of my students from African origin, graduating from our MA program, told me (before the Paris attacks) « it is easier to get unemployment benefits in Belgium than to get a job ». He decided to move to Canada. That summarises it. Migrants and their families have full access to the allocations of the welfare state, but face daunting challenges when they want to get ahead in life. …I am not looking at individual factors to join IS, as young adults across European cities many share similar reasons, but for ‘structural’ factors that make the situation different in some countries compared to others. Here's the link I saw the other day: https://chrisblattman.com/2015/12/01/this-graph-says-the-welfare-state-is-to-blame-for-belgian-isis-recruitment/ https://chrisblattman.com/2015/12/01/this-graph-says-the-wel...
benten10 11y ago
Here's the link (I meant Chris Blattman, not Tyler Cowen. Sorry for misleading, people!): https://chrisblattman.com/2015/12/01/this-graph-says-the-welfare-state-is-to-blame-for-belgian-isis-recruitment/ https://chrisblattman.com/2015/12/01/this-graph-says-the-wel...

Shivetya 11y ago

The balance is finding the amount of assistance that reaches two points, reducing requesting even more aid and removing the tendency to want to take another persons stuff. I believe that this is one of those long term deals, it won't be the first generation which learns to live with it but following generations will. By the third it should be entrenched and cultural norms will be that you don't another persons stuff and your needs are met. As of right now there is too much opportunity to game the system which in itself requires a much more robust system within the government to track all the aid dollars it spends. The danger is that this will force a move away from physical money. This is because it allows government to manipulate the money you have. It leads to totalitarian control as they can simply outlaw an activity by preventing expenditures on it. So in the end the money will need to be independent of the governments as well. (it will be sold to stop terrorists, drug dealers, and other "bad" people)

Retric 11y ago

The US is a fairly poor example of this as you must be disabled, looking for a job, retired, or raising kids to qualify for long term assistance. And creating something of value is a great way to be kicked off the system and sometimes have to pay that money back. The EU model is closer to basic income and Harry Potter is one example that does show up from that well. There are actually quite a few works of art made by people 'on the dole'.

api 11y ago

You can live on basic income and/or welfare, but not all that well. You'll be poor. You'll be living in a bad neighborhood or a crummy tiny apartment and won't be able to buy very much. Most ambitious people -- the people who have personality characteristics that lead them to achieve interesting things -- want more than this. As a result, most are not willing to live exclusively on the dole. The thing a basic income might accomplish is to allow people to make path changes. As it stands a person's well being is directly tied to their income and very few people make enough or can live debt-free enough to save enough "FU money" to take any length of time off without severely threatening their future (e.g. eating retirement savings). Basic income would allow people to take a step back and reevaluate whether their current path is best. Welfare is needs-based not wants-based. It doesn't do that. Personally I think a minimal basic income could go a long way toward eliminating bullshit jobs. A bullshit job is any job that if (hypothetically) eliminated while the person is still paid, nobody would be poorer in any tangible way. It's a job that does not actually need to be done and doesn't actually benefit anyone. Since our society depends on jobs to move money around, bullshit jobs must continue to exist even when those doing them know they are doing nothing of value. Basic income would allow them to make the intelligent decision to stop doing meaningless and valueless work. I think the experiment should be done. I'm not sure if it's going to work but there's only one way to find out.

vinceguidry 11y ago
> You'll be poor. Most people are poor. > Most ambitious people Most people are not ambitious. > Personally I think a minimal basic income could go a long way toward eliminating bullshit jobs Is that something we really want? I read an article a few months ago about a government program that literally created bullshit jobs for willing, unemployed people to go to so they could keep up their skills. People who went through the program reported increased feelings of well-being from the conjured-up sense of purpose. Personally, I'd prefer a bullshit job over no job. Hell, even in a non-bullshit job, there are plenty of things that come with it that are bullshit.
- goldbrick 11y ago
  > Personally, I'd prefer a bullshit job over no job. You realize of course that this runs completely counter to your whinging about supposed freeloaders.

fweespeech 11y ago

> Plenty of people already receive checks from the government every month that they live on, in exchange for no real work responsibilities. Like, a whole lot of people. There should already be a not-so-huge wave of accomplishment coming from all these people. That isn't the same as no responsibilities. > Modern Western societies are rich enough that smart, motivated individuals can mostly rise to the level of their own ability. Capitalism isn't a meritocracy and hasn't been for some time (if ever). Basic income (along with other ideas intended to improve the value of human capital) helps level the field so people can focus on things like a better education, etc. Frankly, I think we need to focus more on providing access to better education (e.g. Free community college, technical schools, bachelor degrees) with reasonable application restrictions (e.g. Fields with low demand such as many Art/soft skill majors should have caps on how many free degrees are available while fields with high demand should be uncapped). I think that'd get us alot further than basic income would in regards to your criticism. HOWEVER, basic income isn't primarily about improving human capital...its just one of the reasons: http://www.salon.com/2014/03/19/5_reasons_to_consider_a_no_strings_attached_basic_income_for_all_americans_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2014/03/19/5_reasons_to_consider_a_no_s... 1) Reduces poverty 2) Stabilizes aggregate demand since people who are primarily relying on it for income are going to spend it on goods/services for survival. 3) Certain social ills (e.g. Domestic abuse) are reduced as its easier to escape bad situations. Children are more likely to finish high school. 4) It is more efficient in terms of dollars spent than existing programs (except Social Security) 5) Human dignity

Ao7bei3s 11y ago

Unemployment benefits just aren't like basic income. At all. 1. They're barely enough to feed yourself and pay for rent, if even. Nothing more. 2. The authorities keep you busy filing paperwork and sending applications for awful jobs. Don't meet your quota, miss a deadline, don't make a meeting, or refuse any job (even if quite beneath your qualification), and your benefits are cut. 3. If you're unemployed, long-term planning is impossible. 4. Higher education is not available. Job training may or may not be. I suspect that most unemployed are by and large less educated -- so what do you expect? Basic income would allow education. And that may, as you put it, carry us into a new age. Disclaimer: I only know about the situation in Germany, and only from (educated, but not IT) acquaintances, not personal experience.

WalterSear 11y ago
It's worse in the US. It's essentially beer money.
- r00fus 11y ago
  Cite?
  - WalterSear 11y ago
    Been on unemployment.
- jpindar 11y ago
  You must drink a lot of beer. The maximum unemployment in Massachusetts, for instance, is over $700 a week. Even in New Hampshire it's over $400.
paulddraper 11y ago
If the only jobs you can get are ones "quite beneath your qualification", you might rethink the reality of those career qualifications.

rpgmaker 11y ago

Awful example. People can't barely get by with those govt checks (at least in the US).

keithba 11y ago

>> There should already be a not-so-huge wave of accomplishment coming from all these people. Not to belittle them and their abilities, but there isn't. Two thoughts here: 1) What specifically do you mean by "wave of accomplishment"? How should that be measured? 2) You will need to cite some proof of this assertion. I can think of many anecdotes of successful people (J.K. Rowling, for instance) who achieved success while on welfare. >>Modern Western societies are rich enough that smart, motivated individuals can mostly rise to the level of their own ability. Not sure this true, but I'd like to see any data you have on this point as well. As it stands, social and economic mobility is limited by birth, see http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2015/07/economic-mobility-in-the-united-states http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/20...

CaptSpify 11y ago

> I'm cautiously enthusiastic about basic income. I want to believe that it really can change everything, until that nagging doubt of "but human nature just doesn't work that way!" inevitably kills the buzz. I'm the same way. I'm excited that we as a species are testing it out, but I'm also glad that it's not my direct economy it's being tested on. I really hope it's successful, and I think it can be, but it's also quite risky.

hvfhhvv 11y ago

You are missing the fact that being poor does not just effect the current generation. The stress induced by living on low income lowers the prospects of the children of these families. Which in turn effects the prospects of the children of the children. The effects of stress are pronounced and greatly effect both quality of life and productivity. Universal income seeks to reduce this stress and give eryone a fairer shot at life. If you think living on benefits is easy you should try it for a couple of months.

Florin_Andrei 11y ago

Grishnakh 11y ago

Two big points about BI: 1) You seem to be thinking of idealist communism, where everyone gets the same paycheck no matter what they do. BI is not like that. The idea with BI is that you get a basic income for nothing. It's just that: basic. Not luxurious, not even very good. Enough to live in a crappy little apartment with a roommate maybe. The incentive to do better is simple: do you want to live in a crappy apartment with roommates, or do you want something better? If you want more than the basic, then you need to get a job. 2) For the "not-so-huge wave of accomplishment", you're missing something pretty big: crime. All those lower-class people getting checks from the government may not be accomplishing much, but they're generally not committing crimes, and as a result, our crime rates are at historically low levels despite what the sensational news media would have you believe. Now why aren't they accomplishing more? Probably because most more-capable people aren't on welfare, they're gainfully employed. But you're also missing other stuff: a lot of these people getting government checks DO work, they just do it under-the-table. They do odd jobs: home repair, yard work, etc., and get paid in cash so they don't lose their check. The government may not like this, but it does add to the economy, and it shows that BI is a workable concept: these people frequently DO want to work, but for whatever reason, regular full-time employment escapes them, either because there's not enough full-time work available (and part-time doesn't pay the bills because there's no benefits and the minimum wage is too low, so they stick with welfare and under-the-table work), or because they have some physical or mental problems that keep them from holding down a regular job. Whatever the reason, most people really do want to make more money than the bare minimum, you just don't see it because it's cash-based and not reported to the IRS.

pakled_engineer 11y ago

You would have to triple welfare payments in order to test if idle people do great things as currently most people can't live off the paltry payments welfare gives. There's also hoops galore to jump through every month like applying for X amount of jobs and getting the interviewers to vouch you did in order to receive another cheque. BI means you can afford to live. Welfare gives you a spot on a waiting list to get into a SRO dump full of drug addicts and $100 remainder to eat, buy hygiene products, and transportation for a month. Nobody can live off that so going to loan sharks, doing under the table exploitative labor and daily hustling are needed at least here in Canada.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

I think an important step is to identify the critical pieces of work that need to occur in order to maintain whatever standard of living a basic income is expected to provide. Then, you need to somehow ensure that the work that is needed to be done is actually done.

vijayr 11y ago

It all depends on what we as a society value most. At this point, we (most of us) are forced to work/do things that we aren't passionate about (or even interested in) just to earn a very very basic lifestyle. Imagine a huge part of the population doesn't have to worry about it anymore, as opposed to a small percentage of the population on welfare now. People would start valuing other things more like artistic abilities etc. How many artists have gone into fields that they have no interest in, just to earn a living? They might go back to creating art, writing books and so on. At least, that is my dream :P Whether this experiment succeeds or not, it is well worth trying. Finland is a very good bet to start this experiment because of it's small size, homogeneous population etc. It would be very difficult to do such an experiment in big, diverse countries like the U.S

intopieces 11y ago

> Plenty of people already receive checks from the government every month that they live on, in exchange for no real work responsibilities. There should already be a not-so-huge wave of accomplishment coming from all these people. [...] but there isn't But that's no surprise -- the reason they're receiving the money in the first place is because they are unable to work in some capacity. It's need-based (old age, disability, etc.). The basic income system would give it to everyone, widening the demographic considerably. >Just about everything that we consider a real advance comes from people working the system that exists using their own ingenuity, not from people allowed to escape the system by providing them an inalienable source of income. It's not at all clear that lack of guaranteed income plays a roll in the 'ingenuity' of the working population. In fact, if we look at the extreme examples, founders of highly successful businesses often had significant family income that allowed them to accomplish what they have.

aphelion 11y ago

I'm always a little mystified by those who believe there is some vast pool of people receiving something called "welfare" that pays them munificent sums to sit around all day not working. There is no "welfare". There's SNAP(food stamps) with a princely average payment of $125, which has time limits on eligibility and mostly goes to working households. There's TANF which only goes to households with children and has both time limits on eligibility and work requirements. What there absolutely is not is some sort of program where millions of people are paid to sit around think of ways to build a better mousetrap. The idea that there is remains one of those pernicious myths that just won't seem to die.

flubert 11y ago
>What there absolutely is not is some sort of program where millions of people are paid to sit around https://www.ssa.gov/agency/performance/2016/FINAL_2014_2016_APR_508_compliant.pdf https://www.ssa.gov/agency/performance/2016/FINAL_2014_2016_...
- aphelion 11y ago
  Case in point. Social Security is OASDI - old age, survivors, and disability insurance. It's not a guaranteed income for the general population, it's meant to provide support to those incapable of working due to age or disability.

hyperpallium 11y ago

Also, past aristocrats. Many (the only?) scientists were aristocrats. But most of them did nothing but, at most, develop byzantine courtly fashion. Basic income will probably yield a similar proportion of doers. In a wider perspective, life has become easier for humans over the last 15,000 years. Does this mean we are less motivated; or have more energy available for non-immediate needs?

notahacker 11y ago
Never mind historic aristocrats, what about the stay-at-home spouses, adult offspring and other working-age dependents of today's moderately well off? What do they do with their time? It's a pretty pertinent question if we're about to extend financial benefits previously only paid to people at least notionally looking for (or unable to) work to this much larger group of working age people who hitherto haven't signalled that they actually need the money...

lifeisstillgood 11y ago

But ... They do. When I was younger I lived off the (UK) state for a while. I ran political campaigns to protect our right to silence, volunteered nightly at a suicide hotline and worked on clean water projects. Friends of mine produced artwork and installations. Eventually we all got proper jobs, some making iron-sculptures for a living, some putting on weight in offices. But a lot of productive work was done. Now we were in our early twenties, we would have done something, but I remember my room-mate staggering in from a dead end job and slumping down as I went off to my second "volunteer" job. It seemed far more acceptable 20 years ago to do this but most humans will do something meaningful with their lives if the next few months rent is sorted out. It's the worry about where next weeks meals and shelter are coming from that limit most people's horizons, not a in are lack of artistry or passion in their soul.

camikazeg 11y ago

There are also plenty of children of wealthy families that essentially receive checks from their parents every month that they live on, in exchange for no real work responsibilities. I would say that there's a fair sized wave of accomplishment coming out of this group. Has Zuckerberg ever had to have a real job? They are both cherry picked groups, and have vastly different backgrounds that affect their level of productivity. Giving everyone $8,000 per year would have vastly different results for different people. It's hard to say what the net effect would be.