3 ms·

I can't take this seriously. >(Questions about how a program like this would affect overall cost of living are beyond our scope, but obviously important.) No,

I can't take this seriously. >(Questions about how a program like this would affect overall cost of living are beyond our scope, but obviously important.) No, that's not just "obviously important". It's practically the ONLY thing that's important. If basic income raises the cost of living to the point where it negates the effect of having it, then basic income is meaningless. Here's your study. 1) Bring one piece of candy into an elementary school class. 2) Ask all the kids what they'll do to get that piece of candy. 3) They'll pretty much do anything. 4) Next, bring bags of candy into another elementary school class, give one bag to each student. 5) Now brandish a piece of candy and ask what they'll do to get it. 6) They're pretty much ignoring you at this point. Money has no value without scarcity and work has no value without ownership of it's rewards. Basic income makes money less scarce and (to pay for basic income) steals from people who work.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- IanDrake 11y ago
  >The times that BI has been tried have not had the outcome you describe You'll need to make a citation for that claim. >After that, if they want a nice car, a nicer house, they would have to work In your second paragraph they only need to work in order to have nice things, in the next paragraph there is no work to be had, so basic income is needed to eat... "The times that BI has been tried, people still work." vs. "You need a job to eat -- it's just a shame that there are no jobs anymore." You're in open contradiction of yourself. EDIT - To add, I think you misunderstood my analogy. It's not that the kids are suddenly lazy and don't want to work, it's that one more piece of candy isn't that inciting. You're going to have to break out another bag of candy before they're even paying attention to you.
nl 11y ago
Right. All of this is true. But the point of a Basic Income is that it substitutes for other forms of income support/welfare. That's supposed to increase the incentive to work, because many forms of welfare are income dependent. For example, we often hear reports of parents who refuse to work because they'll lose some or all welfare payments and their wages will be net worse off. If everyone gets the basic income, then maybe this effect can be overcome. There's some reason to think this could be true - the marginal benefit of $1 extra at low income levels is much more than at higher levels. It's worth noting that many conservatives support a basic income because of this, and because the system will be much less complicated and reduce the number of government programs.
melbourne_mat 11y ago
The first problem is that you're comparing children to adults. Adults are slightly more nuanced in their thinking. The second problem is your use of the word "steals". Does the hedge fund manager who earns $3.5 billion income in a single year deserve all that money? I disagree very strongly with that. In fact I'd use the word "parasite" to describe someone who earns that much. "work has no value without ownership of it's rewards" So you work only for the money? I bet you're lots of fun at parties.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

IanDrake 11y ago
>The times that BI has been tried have not had the outcome you describe You'll need to make a citation for that claim. >After that, if they want a nice car, a nicer house, they would have to work In your second paragraph they only need to work in order to have nice things, in the next paragraph there is no work to be had, so basic income is needed to eat... "The times that BI has been tried, people still work." vs. "You need a job to eat -- it's just a shame that there are no jobs anymore." You're in open contradiction of yourself. EDIT - To add, I think you misunderstood my analogy. It's not that the kids are suddenly lazy and don't want to work, it's that one more piece of candy isn't that inciting. You're going to have to break out another bag of candy before they're even paying attention to you.

nl 11y ago

Right. All of this is true. But the point of a Basic Income is that it substitutes for other forms of income support/welfare. That's supposed to increase the incentive to work, because many forms of welfare are income dependent. For example, we often hear reports of parents who refuse to work because they'll lose some or all welfare payments and their wages will be net worse off. If everyone gets the basic income, then maybe this effect can be overcome. There's some reason to think this could be true - the marginal benefit of $1 extra at low income levels is much more than at higher levels. It's worth noting that many conservatives support a basic income because of this, and because the system will be much less complicated and reduce the number of government programs.

melbourne_mat 11y ago

The first problem is that you're comparing children to adults. Adults are slightly more nuanced in their thinking. The second problem is your use of the word "steals". Does the hedge fund manager who earns $3.5 billion income in a single year deserve all that money? I disagree very strongly with that. In fact I'd use the word "parasite" to describe someone who earns that much. "work has no value without ownership of it's rewards" So you work only for the money? I bet you're lots of fun at parties.