6 ms·

> When did it become my responsibility to work harder so that they can do that? That's the thing - it isn't and won't be. Basic Income is designed for, and in

by saulrh 11y ago

> When did it become my responsibility to work harder so that they can do that? That's the thing - it isn't and won't be. Basic Income is designed for, and in fact only works in, civilizations with enough excess productivity that they don't have to have their entire population working their assess off to maintain homeostasis and well-being. The USA is just about to get there. Some of the Nordic countries were there probably five or six years ago. There's a reason they're implementing it before us. BI isn't "so that people can sit on their couches and do nothing all day while I support them". BI is so that people aren't required to have jobs to survive. Because when your civilization has sufficiently efficient per-person production, you end up with an issue where you're not just overprovisioned, but so overprovisioned that companies must start laying off large portions of the population to avoid wasting money hiring uselessly overproductive employees. At which point you end up with 30% or 60% unemployment and you have to choose between letting a third of your population starve or implementing something like BI. That's the situation. BI isn't here to make it your responsibility to support everybody. BI is here because it's become so easy for people to support others that the economy, which up until now has assumed that there'll never be enough support to go around, has fallen apart. It's set up so that you can choose to support others instead of taking care of your family, and still have everything make sense.

ikeboy 11y ago
The case needs to made that we're at this stage. And high unemployment is a result of the financial crisis, not over production.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  There is no "this stage" -- a basic income provides a smaller disincentive to work than providing low income people with the same amount in mean-tested welfare programs, because you don't lose the basic income when you get a job. If you're in a society that can afford welfare programs at all then it can afford the equivalent basic income.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    1. Basic income would need to be more than welfare, if people can't live completely off welfare easily. 2. Many people oppose welfare that doesn't require a job precisely because of the societal costs to the disincentive to work.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      > 1. Basic income would need to be more than welfare, if people can't live completely off welfare easily. Who says you need to be able to live completely off of it? > 2. Many people oppose welfare that doesn't require a job precisely because of the societal costs to the disincentive to work. So we're getting rid of all the programs that don't then? Requiring someone to work to receive benefits is unbelievably easy to scam anyway because two people can just hire each other to watch television and have the payments cancel. It is possible to make the argument that there should be no social assistance at all. But that isn't the status quo, and the argument cannot be made that the status quo is better than a basic income.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        >Who says you need to be able to live completely off of it? I thought the argument for basic income is that it could support someone without the need for a job. If it can't, then that's not what I've been discussing. >Requiring someone to work to receive benefits is unbelievably easy to scam anyway because two people can just hire each other to watch television and have the payments cancel. "Illegal thing X cannot be enforced, therefore X should be legal" is an invalid argument.
        AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        > I thought the argument for basic income is that it could support someone without the need for a job. If it can't, then that's not what I've been discussing. The amount is independent of the thing. You could have a basic income of $5000/year and it would still work better than $5000/year in means-tested welfare. You could have a basic income of $50,000/year but that is probably inadvisable. What probably makes the most sense is to replace existing welfare at approximately the same level and then collect data on how that works to decide the best amount in the long-term. (But $12,000/year is probably in the ballpark.) > "Illegal thing X cannot be enforced, therefore X should be legal" is an invalid argument. How is it an invalid argument? Passing unenforceable laws is futile and stupid. It fosters disrespect for the law and gives advantage to people willing to break the law when they know they can get away with it.

by saulrh 11y ago

ikeboy 11y ago

The case needs to made that we're at this stage. And high unemployment is a result of the financial crisis, not over production.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
There is no "this stage" -- a basic income provides a smaller disincentive to work than providing low income people with the same amount in mean-tested welfare programs, because you don't lose the basic income when you get a job. If you're in a society that can afford welfare programs at all then it can afford the equivalent basic income.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  1. Basic income would need to be more than welfare, if people can't live completely off welfare easily. 2. Many people oppose welfare that doesn't require a job precisely because of the societal costs to the disincentive to work.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > 1. Basic income would need to be more than welfare, if people can't live completely off welfare easily. Who says you need to be able to live completely off of it? > 2. Many people oppose welfare that doesn't require a job precisely because of the societal costs to the disincentive to work. So we're getting rid of all the programs that don't then? Requiring someone to work to receive benefits is unbelievably easy to scam anyway because two people can just hire each other to watch television and have the payments cancel. It is possible to make the argument that there should be no social assistance at all. But that isn't the status quo, and the argument cannot be made that the status quo is better than a basic income.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >Who says you need to be able to live completely off of it? I thought the argument for basic income is that it could support someone without the need for a job. If it can't, then that's not what I've been discussing. >Requiring someone to work to receive benefits is unbelievably easy to scam anyway because two people can just hire each other to watch television and have the payments cancel. "Illegal thing X cannot be enforced, therefore X should be legal" is an invalid argument.
      - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        > I thought the argument for basic income is that it could support someone without the need for a job. If it can't, then that's not what I've been discussing. The amount is independent of the thing. You could have a basic income of $5000/year and it would still work better than $5000/year in means-tested welfare. You could have a basic income of $50,000/year but that is probably inadvisable. What probably makes the most sense is to replace existing welfare at approximately the same level and then collect data on how that works to decide the best amount in the long-term. (But $12,000/year is probably in the ballpark.) > "Illegal thing X cannot be enforced, therefore X should be legal" is an invalid argument. How is it an invalid argument? Passing unenforceable laws is futile and stupid. It fosters disrespect for the law and gives advantage to people willing to break the law when they know they can get away with it.