4 ms·

> The problem with basic income is that people need purpose, not charity. > I think we need to figure out how to empower people. I don't think anything you've

> The problem with basic income is that people need purpose, not charity. > I think we need to figure out how to empower people. I don't think anything you've said is incompatible with something like basic income. What could be more empowering than knowing your basic needs will be taken care of? From that position of strength you can negotiate with others based on mutual benefit rather than avoiding the consequences of not meeting your basic needs for survival. You must be enticed into a transaction rather than coerced no matter how circumspect that coercion. If people needed to be forced to add value to the world through the threat of starvation or homelessness HN wouldn't exist. Why would people with means continue transacting? I don't believe the poor are much different, they will nurture their potential and provide what they can to the world because the trade leaves them better off.

Spooky23 11y ago
You're missing the point and reading thing that I didn't write. People don't want your charity. They want a chance to earn a living. When you give people everything they need to subsist, but nothing to do, it doesn't give them "freedom". It creates dependency. Nobody in Silicon Valley has basic income. They have ripe opportunity for productive employment. That's the safety net that facilitates risk.
- clavalle 11y ago
  >Nobody in Silicon Valley has basic income. Savings, financial support structures through their family, direct funding, and skills they can easily turn into funds. These are not basic income but they have the same effect: they allow the freedom to bargain from a position of strength without worrying about starving or going homeless or other basic needs unpleasantness. They have breathing room to create. And they do. Imagine a world where, in order to create a new business, someone had to enter a walled city, give up all savings, were forbidden to take money from outside sources and must work full time (at least) at the same time in order to earn their daily rations of food and a bed while they are at it. That is the world the poor live in, more or less. The walled city is the planet Earth. You mention dependency but you forgot the qualifier: on government. The poor live in dependency right now -- they are dependent on their employer to live week to week. They work, not to better their situation, but to keep from losing what little they have. It is the illusion of freedom. You mention charity, but my position has nothing to do with charity and making people comfortable just because. It is about putting people in a position where their every transaction, if we assume they are rational, are guaranteed to create value. That helps all of us. It is about giving people a hard floor to stand on. They will find things to do, just like most people with money and resources find a way to add value to the world -- because it improves their situation. We don't need to worry about keeping people busy...they can figure out for themselves what is best for them and the world doesn't improve your situation unless you improve the world. I trust they'll figure that out.
marknutter 11y ago
The problem is how "basic needs" are defined.
- clavalle 11y ago
  Easy: anything someone needs to avoid imminent or near imminent avoidable physical pain or death. Food, Shelter, Clothing, Healthcare.
  - marknutter 11y ago
    Easy? What quality and variety of food? what size shelter and in what location? What brand of clothing and how many outfits? What level of health care? Who decides these things?
    - clavalle 11y ago
      Now we've gotten past the definition of categories and into levels -- that's progress. That's where Basic Income or something like it shines. You don't have to micromanage -- you look at averages for the area and give a lump sum and let the individual figure it out.
      - marknutter 11y ago
        I don't see how that's progress. To me it further complicates the issue. You're suggesting that there would be different basic incomes based on where you live? Doesn't that seem the least bit discriminatory?
        clavalle 11y ago
        We went from a general question to discussing specifics...that is progress. It is a complicated issue so I am not surprised or dismayed that when getting to specifics things get a bit complicated. And yes, there should be some flex based on where a person lives. It is not discriminatory (in the pejorative sense) it is pragmatic. And perhaps a useful policy tool.

Spooky23 11y ago

You're missing the point and reading thing that I didn't write. People don't want your charity. They want a chance to earn a living. When you give people everything they need to subsist, but nothing to do, it doesn't give them "freedom". It creates dependency. Nobody in Silicon Valley has basic income. They have ripe opportunity for productive employment. That's the safety net that facilitates risk.

clavalle 11y ago
>Nobody in Silicon Valley has basic income. Savings, financial support structures through their family, direct funding, and skills they can easily turn into funds. These are not basic income but they have the same effect: they allow the freedom to bargain from a position of strength without worrying about starving or going homeless or other basic needs unpleasantness. They have breathing room to create. And they do. Imagine a world where, in order to create a new business, someone had to enter a walled city, give up all savings, were forbidden to take money from outside sources and must work full time (at least) at the same time in order to earn their daily rations of food and a bed while they are at it. That is the world the poor live in, more or less. The walled city is the planet Earth. You mention dependency but you forgot the qualifier: on government. The poor live in dependency right now -- they are dependent on their employer to live week to week. They work, not to better their situation, but to keep from losing what little they have. It is the illusion of freedom. You mention charity, but my position has nothing to do with charity and making people comfortable just because. It is about putting people in a position where their every transaction, if we assume they are rational, are guaranteed to create value. That helps all of us. It is about giving people a hard floor to stand on. They will find things to do, just like most people with money and resources find a way to add value to the world -- because it improves their situation. We don't need to worry about keeping people busy...they can figure out for themselves what is best for them and the world doesn't improve your situation unless you improve the world. I trust they'll figure that out.

marknutter 11y ago

The problem is how "basic needs" are defined.

clavalle 11y ago
Easy: anything someone needs to avoid imminent or near imminent avoidable physical pain or death. Food, Shelter, Clothing, Healthcare.
- marknutter 11y ago
  Easy? What quality and variety of food? what size shelter and in what location? What brand of clothing and how many outfits? What level of health care? Who decides these things?
  - clavalle 11y ago
    Now we've gotten past the definition of categories and into levels -- that's progress. That's where Basic Income or something like it shines. You don't have to micromanage -- you look at averages for the area and give a lump sum and let the individual figure it out.
    - marknutter 11y ago
      I don't see how that's progress. To me it further complicates the issue. You're suggesting that there would be different basic incomes based on where you live? Doesn't that seem the least bit discriminatory?
      - clavalle 11y ago
        We went from a general question to discussing specifics...that is progress. It is a complicated issue so I am not surprised or dismayed that when getting to specifics things get a bit complicated. And yes, there should be some flex based on where a person lives. It is not discriminatory (in the pejorative sense) it is pragmatic. And perhaps a useful policy tool.