4 ms·
...given a guaranteed, fixed reward no matter how much or how little you work for it, disincentivizes work...I just think that socialism and communism (which ba
by jeremysmyth 11y ago
...given a guaranteed, fixed reward no matter how much or how little you work for it, disincentivizes work...I just think that socialism and communism (which basic income basically is...)
Wrong. Basic income lifts the floor. It does not concern itself with the ceiling. Calling it communism is utterly wrong and completely missing the point.
- mozumder 11y agoThis is key. No one has ever said "I'm going to stop making money because I have $1."
- alexmat 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility At $1 the second dollar is useful, at $50,000, I'm good for the year and will not pursue additional dollars. Replace $50,000 with whatever amount you need to feel content.
- livingparadox 11y agoSee rich people as a counterpoint to your argument
- alexmat 11y agoIt's not a counterpoint. For a rich person, each additional dollar is worth less than it is for a poor person.
- soperj 11y agoand yet Warren Buffett continues to work?
- alexmat 11y agoThere is a high social status associated with his job. If he were a janitor with the same wealth, I doubt he'd be rushing in to scrub toilets all day.
- sokoloff 11y agoThough I'm several orders of magnitude less well-off than Mr Buffett, I still have more than enough that I could stop working now and survive well enough the next 50 years. I continue to work because I genuinely enjoy what I do.
- livingparadox 11y agoI didn't say there isn't a diminishing value of each dollar, but your comment seemed to imply that at a certain point, people will be "content" at a certain income level and not try to get more money. Rich people are a counterpoint because there are people with incomes the size of a small country, and they are still striving for money. Given the diminishing utility of familiar pleasures, I think its likely that constantly reaching for "more" is the norm, rather than the exception.
- mozumder 11y agoThat's nice and all, but no one is going to feel content at basic income.
- Mahn 11y agoBut that's different from basic income. The idea with basic income is that you shouldn't fear dying of hunger and being homeless because you literally can't pay, but at the same time you will have to work if you want that plasma TV and iPhone on top of your basic survival money. Basic income should give everyone just about enough to survive and pay rent, but not enough to have a high quality life that most people want.
- alexmat 11y agoFood and shelter are limited resources which cannot be given freely. If the cost is not remunerated to the provider (in this case government) it imposes an unsustainable burden on the provider to find new resources. There are only so many houses that can be built on this planet and only so many people willing to do it.
- joshkpeterson 11y agoAnd how is it that there coincidentally is just precisely that much to go around? You're buying into a false assumption that's built into American culture, that no one really deserves anything unless they win it through labor.
- malka 11y agoI'd go as far as saying that it is a liberal (in the sense classical liberal) idea. Basic income recognizes the idea of a labor market, but admits that this market is neither pure nor perfect: the jobs seeker are in an unstable situation that they have to get out of to pay their bills. Therefore the employer has an edge in the market. By decoupling the revenu and the employment, the job seekers can make better decision for themselves.