5 ms·

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 p

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...
      - mikeash 11y ago
        You'd want to look at state budgets too, since a lot of social programs happen there. Basic income is supposed to replace social security, unemployment, food stamps, and more. That's not a huge change to the number, but it's decent. There's no doubt taxes would need to increase to fund such a program, of course.
        vinceguidry 11y ago
        > There's no doubt taxes would need to increase to fund such a program, of course. Who would pay them?
        mikeash 11y ago
        Workers? It's not like everybody would stop working. The number of people content with $1,000/month is going to be pretty low.
        vinceguidry 11y ago
        I fail to see how that could possibly fly, politically. Everybody who works has to pay for everybody who doesn't want to work to just fuck around.
        mikeash 11y ago
        It's not qualitatively different than what we have now.
        ashark 11y ago
        Also, everyone gets the checks. Some workers' parents will be living off them. Their kids in college. Their cousin who was crippled in a car wreck. It's not like they won't know people benefiting who aren't exactly lazy freeloaders.
        eanzenberg 11y ago
nilkn 11y ago
I never said anyone should be left out of the discussion. I didn't even disagree with you (as I explicitly said). But I do think your position is vastly more complex to defend if these are the only two sample sets you have to base it on. Part of the problem with things like disability pay is that it introduces a complex calculus about whether it's worth it to keep getting it or not. A basic income is designed to alleviate that. There are many situations where someone on disability is presently encouraged by the system to not be overly productive (even if they could be or might like to be).
manyoso 11y ago
"Paying someone to not have to participate in the economic system" No, again, basic income is about the government providing an income to meet basic needs without any strings attached. The government isn't paying you not to participate, they are saying you may participate and how much is up to you without fear of starving.
jaegerpicker 11y ago
I disagree with your second part. A good counter example is that if I had a basic income, I'd be much more likely to pursue a career in scientific research, particularly in the area of Marine Biology. I love software development but I also love biology. The big choice for me is that software pays very well and makes it much easier to support a family which is also important to me. Given an opportunity to have a baseline to supplement my income, I'd be vastly more likely to choice a career that allowed me to not only do right by my family but had a net positive impact on the world as a whole.
- spullara 11y ago
  Devil's advocate. Doesn't that mean that you would stop doing something that people value and start doing something people don't value as much? I'm for BI but this makes it sound like you would do something that people don't want and that you might be worse at doing than your current job.
  - jaegerpicker 11y ago
    I don't think so, I'd say a different sort of people value the current work I do. People who are interested in making money over other pursuits. The people who really care about ecology/biology and advancing human knowledge there would put making money as second to the science. Therefore they tend to not have as much money. It's less about the volume of people that value something and more about the kind of people that value something IMO.

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...
    - mikeash 11y ago
      You'd want to look at state budgets too, since a lot of social programs happen there. Basic income is supposed to replace social security, unemployment, food stamps, and more. That's not a huge change to the number, but it's decent. There's no doubt taxes would need to increase to fund such a program, of course.
      - vinceguidry 11y ago
        > There's no doubt taxes would need to increase to fund such a program, of course. Who would pay them?
        mikeash 11y ago
        Workers? It's not like everybody would stop working. The number of people content with $1,000/month is going to be pretty low.
        vinceguidry 11y ago
        I fail to see how that could possibly fly, politically. Everybody who works has to pay for everybody who doesn't want to work to just fuck around.
        mikeash 11y ago
        It's not qualitatively different than what we have now.
        ashark 11y ago
        Also, everyone gets the checks. Some workers' parents will be living off them. Their kids in college. Their cousin who was crippled in a car wreck. It's not like they won't know people benefiting who aren't exactly lazy freeloaders.
        eanzenberg 11y ago

nilkn 11y ago

I never said anyone should be left out of the discussion. I didn't even disagree with you (as I explicitly said). But I do think your position is vastly more complex to defend if these are the only two sample sets you have to base it on. Part of the problem with things like disability pay is that it introduces a complex calculus about whether it's worth it to keep getting it or not. A basic income is designed to alleviate that. There are many situations where someone on disability is presently encouraged by the system to not be overly productive (even if they could be or might like to be).

manyoso 11y ago

"Paying someone to not have to participate in the economic system" No, again, basic income is about the government providing an income to meet basic needs without any strings attached. The government isn't paying you not to participate, they are saying you may participate and how much is up to you without fear of starving.

jaegerpicker 11y ago

I disagree with your second part. A good counter example is that if I had a basic income, I'd be much more likely to pursue a career in scientific research, particularly in the area of Marine Biology. I love software development but I also love biology. The big choice for me is that software pays very well and makes it much easier to support a family which is also important to me. Given an opportunity to have a baseline to supplement my income, I'd be vastly more likely to choice a career that allowed me to not only do right by my family but had a net positive impact on the world as a whole.

spullara 11y ago
Devil's advocate. Doesn't that mean that you would stop doing something that people value and start doing something people don't value as much? I'm for BI but this makes it sound like you would do something that people don't want and that you might be worse at doing than your current job.
- jaegerpicker 11y ago
  I don't think so, I'd say a different sort of people value the current work I do. People who are interested in making money over other pursuits. The people who really care about ecology/biology and advancing human knowledge there would put making money as second to the science. Therefore they tend to not have as much money. It's less about the volume of people that value something and more about the kind of people that value something IMO.