6 ms·

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

by 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.
- laaph 11y ago
  The people shamming the system have the ultimate incentives not to have income. If you are shown to be able to work, you have to pay back all the income you've ever received from it.
dawnbreez 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 Debatable. In the US, many welfare programs are designed to cut off anyone who actually gets a job...even if that job pays less than what you'd get from welfare. This problem gets even bigger as you factor in the fact that multiple welfare programs exist, making it nigh-impossible to prevent that drop from being catastrophic. This is a major incentive to stay on welfare. Meanwhile, with a BI, a person who seeks a job will earn more money than one who does not. That's it. No complicated math involved, not even subtraction; a guy who works will have more money than one who does not. Assuming all the participants want more money, the second set of rules will lead to more work than the first.
- stevesearer 11y ago
  One question I have about BI is if it replaces other forms of social welfare (food stamps, unemployment, etc...), what happens when some percentage of people inevitably make decisions and still cannot afford the basics of what BI should cover? Will a new set of social welfare programs replace the ones that were previously removed?
  - beat 11y ago
    If BI isn't enough to replace existing welfare systems, then it isn't enough. You can't half-ass something like this.
    - stevesearer 11y ago
      I'm more speaking to what I believe is the inevitability of some people making bad decisions (like buying a bunch of powerball tickets or betting your money at the racetrack or something.) with the money they receive and then not being able to afford the basics. There would obviously be many people who are benefitted by BI, but my question is more wondering what happens to the percentage of people that end up still needing extra help.
      - 11y ago
eanzenberg 11y ago
Why do you assume people behave this way, when there's every indication that human's don't behave with "utopian ideals"? This is exactly why BI is such a terrible idea, along with communism, socialism, and free-market capitalism. The system we have now works "pretty-ok" which is leaps and bounds better than this theory and others which require people to act as "honorable actors".

by lukev 11y ago

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.

laaph 11y ago
The people shamming the system have the ultimate incentives not to have income. If you are shown to be able to work, you have to pay back all the income you've ever received from it.

dawnbreez 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 Debatable. In the US, many welfare programs are designed to cut off anyone who actually gets a job...even if that job pays less than what you'd get from welfare. This problem gets even bigger as you factor in the fact that multiple welfare programs exist, making it nigh-impossible to prevent that drop from being catastrophic. This is a major incentive to stay on welfare. Meanwhile, with a BI, a person who seeks a job will earn more money than one who does not. That's it. No complicated math involved, not even subtraction; a guy who works will have more money than one who does not. Assuming all the participants want more money, the second set of rules will lead to more work than the first.

stevesearer 11y ago
One question I have about BI is if it replaces other forms of social welfare (food stamps, unemployment, etc...), what happens when some percentage of people inevitably make decisions and still cannot afford the basics of what BI should cover? Will a new set of social welfare programs replace the ones that were previously removed?
- beat 11y ago
  If BI isn't enough to replace existing welfare systems, then it isn't enough. You can't half-ass something like this.
  - stevesearer 11y ago
    I'm more speaking to what I believe is the inevitability of some people making bad decisions (like buying a bunch of powerball tickets or betting your money at the racetrack or something.) with the money they receive and then not being able to afford the basics. There would obviously be many people who are benefitted by BI, but my question is more wondering what happens to the percentage of people that end up still needing extra help.
    - 11y ago

eanzenberg 11y ago

Why do you assume people behave this way, when there's every indication that human's don't behave with "utopian ideals"? This is exactly why BI is such a terrible idea, along with communism, socialism, and free-market capitalism. The system we have now works "pretty-ok" which is leaps and bounds better than this theory and others which require people to act as "honorable actors".