23 ms·

A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

• harryh 11y ago
  $10,000 * US_POPULATION ~= $3.2T ~= The total annual tax revenue of the US federal government. Just something to keep in mind when discussing this topic.
  • seibelj 11y ago
    Don't have an opinion on any of this, but how many of the population you calculate are citizens over the age of 18? And what would be saved from the US budget by eliminating various existing programs that would be superfluous by UBI?
    • Permit 11y ago
      Do children not typically receive the universal basic income? If not, is it fair to give a parent of three children the same allowance as I (a single person) receive? I also wonder about whether or not $10,000 is more or less than someone on disability currently receives. Is there a risk here that the more vulnerable members of society will end up receiving less money?
      • stickydink 11y ago
        There's a risk that people decide that pumping out children is an effective way to make money in the short term.
      • grahamburger 11y ago
        I've often wondered this too. I suspect that a family making use of WIC, medicaid / medicare and/or disability is commonly using more than $10k/person/year or gov't assistance, and would lose money going to UBI at that rate. I also wonder what could be done to avoid the UBI version of the two-income trap[0] - seems like UBI would naturally pressure entry level wages downward. http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents/dp/0465090907 http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Paren...
      • Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        Be careful of the incentives you create with these methods. As a side note, will a poor person who is unable to have a child be allowed to adopt and receive an increase in basic income, and will the adoption process by significantly more discriminating in who is allowed to adopt compared to who is allowed to have children?
  • blacksmith_tb 11y ago
    Presumably though you just increase income tax to recover some or all of that from people who are employed? So the actual cost should be significantly lower.
    • Jtsummers 11y ago
      That tax revenue isn't just from (personal or corporate) income tax. There are a number of other sources of federal tax revenue which could be increased without a (direct) impact on the same people intended to benefit from a UBI (though it will have an indirect impact).
    • tankenmate 11y ago
      Some argue that if an UBI is introduced then a flat rate tax should be applied to all other income; in the US this would lead to reasonably large income tax increase.
      • deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    • bryanlarsen 11y ago
      Yes, taxes on the average worker would go up by the same amount as they're receiving in basic income. So the effective costs of a basic income program are a very small fraction of $3.2 trillion.
  • iskander 11y ago
    Would children and retirees also claim basic income?
    • gpm 11y ago
      Retirees presumably yes, since differentiating 'retired' vs 'unemployed' involves the sort of expensive invasive work that UBI looks to obsolete.
      • jerf 11y ago
        Part of the reason I'm not a UBI proponent is that I have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the real world to "obsolete" that much work. Literally the next bill passed after UBI would be a bill to limit and/or extend it somehow to some favored or disfavored interest. We got to where we are not because of arcane technical procedures, we got to where we are because of the humans in the government. Pass UBI with the same humans in the same government and the same result will occur at speed.
        • undersuit 11y ago
          >Literally the next bill passed after UBI would be a bill to limit and/or extend it somehow to some favored or disfavored interest. It's universal. You can't extend it, it's universal. You could limit it, but then it's obviously not universal. I'm not saying it's impossible, but by definition anything not universal is not Universal Basic Income.
      • deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    • zardo 11y ago
      Children are included in the basic income in Alaska.
  • tyingq 11y ago
    Interesting. This chart is a pretty good reference to see what types of existing spending might overlap with that (Social Security?) and what wouldn't. https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie%2C__2015_enacted.png https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_...
    • refurb 11y ago
      You couldn't eliminate social security payments since for a lot of folks, they take home more than $10K. You could lop off the bottom 10%, but a lot of spending would remain.
  • virmundi 11y ago
    The advocates for such policy do keep this in mind. They require tax increases on business. If you make money, you have to pay. The idea is to help reallocate wealth because the market has moved beyond certain segments of labor. For example, when McDonald's can automate half its staff, the other half can't provide labor at the minimum price to be worth while. UBI says give these people, those displaced from the labor force since they are no longer needed, tax money directly rather than going through government mediators in a piecemeal fashion like they do today. Of course McDonald's will have a higher tax burden to support these displaced workers. Rather than McDonald's shouldering the burden by itself, the government acts as an insurance company. It takes in taxes and payout what is essentially an existence claim.
    • johndevor 11y ago
      Won't higher taxes here in the US drive more and more business overseas (specifically to China) and further exacerbate the problem of income inequality? We already see corporations keeping massive amounts of capital overseas because of high tax rates. That money should and could be here in the USA.
      • camhenlin 11y ago
        Yes but it won't matter because the newly displaced workers will receive basic income!
      • tangent128 11y ago
        What value exists in bringing that capital back "in" to the USA if it provides no benefit to US citizens in doing so?
        • randyrand 11y ago
          Its almost impossible to bring in wealth and not have it benefit people. People dont keep their trillions of dollars under the mattress. Its invested.
          • 11y ago
  • empath75 11y ago
    The top marginal tax rate would have to be dramatically increased to pay for it. Also, you'd have to increase capital gains and estate taxes. Make no mistake, basic minimum income would be a massive redistribution of wealth. I'm in favor of it, but let's not pretend we can pay for it by shuffling around some social safety net spending.
    • alttab 11y ago
      It would completely remove the necessity to be productive. That can't turn out well. What's preventing me from having as many babies as I can knowing that they too will not have to work or find a job to be supported? I know this won't work at scale, because I understand math.
      • jack9 11y ago
        > It would completely remove the necessity to be productive. That can't turn out well. Take a look at mobile games. People do lots of things just to be 1 rung higher on an artificial competitive ladder (reset every month) about endlessly punching a "Battle" button. I think this idea that necessity has ever driven productivity (look around at your job) is a long running joke.
      • emidln 11y ago
        There's no necessity to be productive now. Most (all?) of the minimum wage jobs in the United States aren't productive to society except so far as that they have some minimal amount of money to make violent property crime slightly less attractive.
      • lintiness 11y ago
        you need to emotion this a little more and get back to us.
      • tangent128 11y ago
        Why would you <em>want</em> to have as many babies as you can?
  • bunnymancer 11y ago
    Right, which currently excludes any taxes that would've come from the population that do not have any income to spend, and is instead costing taxpayers More through constant healthcare and the insanely pricey food stamps, etc. Just something to keep in mind.
  • NolF 11y ago
    Note that there are "only" 209m Americans over the age of 18 [1]. Not that it makes it much more affordable. Without including medical, it looks the government spends about 1.5T already (including SS) [2] 1 http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/demographic.html http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/demographic.html 2 http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2016USbn_17bs6n_203060#usgs302 http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2016USbn_1...
    • EpicEng 11y ago
      Yet I imagine that a basic income for e.g. a family of four would be quite a bit higher than that for a single 20 year old. Minors have to be factored in somehow.
  • Shivetya 11y ago
    What about working age population? Surely it isn't that much. Kind of scary when you reverse the numbers. The number of people working certainly isn't enough to generate the tax income of the country has. Yet this game is what keeps people from open rebellion; embedded taxes. Figure it this way, if individuals had to pay the full tax load out of their paychecks that they actually do most would more than flinch. Regardless, current subsidies to many people are higher than 10k so it would never be set there. People would get all sorts of up kicks for dependents and the like because politicians need to buy votes and punish dissenters. So if we just consider the working population, how much does it cost? Can we then rid ourselves of some government agencies which are devoted to providing aid?
  • aero142 11y ago
    Imagine a new tax passed at the same time as basic income where anyone making more than the median income of $51,939 paid an additional $10000 in taxes. Now, lets tack on a dollar for dollar replacement for anyone receiving disability or social security. These kinds of thing make that number start dropping pretty quick and are in the spirit of what basic income would look like. The raw number you gave isn't what anyone is proposing.
  • merpnderp 11y ago
    Many people would not receive this money from the government as their taxes would be more than the $10K payment. 160 million Americans work, and likely half would receive little or no money, and only the bottom two quintiles of income earners would earn the full or close to the full amount. So probably only cost around $2T, or about 25% more than Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid combined (although this would only replace Social Security). Very expensive, but doable in a world where our representatives weren't corrupt to the hilt. Not sure what is an equitable solution for children, but giving the full amount per kid seems grossly unfair.
    • NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
      > Not sure what is an equitable solution for children, but giving the full amount per kid seems grossly unfair. Why unfair? I sometimes get the impression that the mainstream culture values children at some degree lower than "human".
  • kapnobatairza 11y ago
    Does a basic income need to be generated directly through government spending? With all the talk about QE and "helicopter money" over the past 8-9 years, I'm curious why very few have considering the merits of a basic income through inflation. What if the central bank had a mechanism to fund special "basic income" accounts at banks on a yearly basis... These accounts would not be considered deposits but would rather be a special type of 0-interest loan that is not paid back and doesn't not count against each bank's fractional reserve requirements. Each citizen is able to open 1 of these accounts at a bank that meets the qualifications to participate in the program. Is there any merit in a basic income through inflation? If we are going to inflate our money by through QE and throwing it out of a helicopter to banks, why not use the same principle and inflate our money by throwing it our a helicopter into the homes of citizens? special "basic income" accounts
    • imtringued 11y ago
      The effects of Quantitative Easing can be reversed by the central bank because it's merely an asset swap. It's only a temporary measure.
      • dv_dt 11y ago
        It's a temporary measure whose end and efficacy remains unknown. It seems like the QE injection really only affected 'Wall street' with very little of it escaping to cause mainline economic activity.
  • spinlock 11y ago
    This is a very good back of the envelope calculation. But, I think you need to take a similar look at the cost of social security, etc...
  • kinghajj 11y ago
    Aren't UBI proposals designed so that those who earn more than the yearly stipend from employment don't receive it?
    • bufordsharkley 11y ago
      The key to the UBI is that there is no means test (which introduces bad incentives, etc). UBI with means testing is known as the Guaranteed Minimum Income.
    • earlz 11y ago
      No, UBI is everyone receives X amount of money, no questions asked. The theory is that the tax increases etc balance this out for the middle class so that they effectively earn the same amount of money with the UBI income
  • saalweachter 11y ago
    The total personal income in the United States is $14.7T (2014); so a $3.2T spending program amounts to a ~22% flat income tax. Which is interesting when you consider that you'd (presumably) be dissolving Social Security and Welfare in favor of UBI; Social Security is already 12.4%. What's also fun with UBI is that you then get to assign a numeric value to how socialist your country currently is, eg, 22% socialist. (Personally I'd go for something closer to 30% socialist.)
• ThomPete 11y ago
  It's not just smarter it's the only possible solution out of the two. Many people wrongly discuss the premise of basic income in the context of whether it's a better solution for for the job market. I.e. as a better way to solve unemployment fluctuations which in this view are still going up. But the whole point about Basic Income is what we do about there being fewer and fewer jobs that pay a proper salary.
  • paulpauper 11y ago
    Proponents of the UBI make the generous assumption that recipients will be as careful with money as they (the proponents) are . Choosing between food & housing credits vs. cash, the former has less room for abuse. Its like "I would never use my UBI on alcohol"...well you're not "most people"
    • Karunamon 11y ago
      Given the frankly despair-inducing statistics of what happens to poor people when they acquire a sudden cash windfall (and if you're flat broke and living on the streets, a few hundred every couple weeks is HUGE), I intend to agree. Most UBI implementations I've seen require gutting existing welfare systems - okay, fine, but what happens to the person who inevitably squanders their money?
      • quietwhisper 11y ago
        Sorry, what statistics? http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/welfare-reform-direct-cash-poor/407236/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/wel... http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-happens-when-you-just-give-money-to-poor-people http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-...
        • spinlock 11y ago
          I do think that's a different issue but I'm with you that the assumption that poor people will spend money on drugs or alcohol is pretty far off base. After all, aren't most people in the US forced into debt because of healthcare? Getting sick shouldn't be viewed as a vice.
• paulpauper 11y ago
  But what about existing entitlement sending, which keeps growing? A UBI without preconditions will only compound that problem, because what is to stop people from wasting their basic income on frivolities while also drawing from existing welfare programs. Many people may agree to work for less than the current minimum wage, and on more flexible terms, if they're supplementing a guaranteed income, not scrambling to avoid having to beg for food. But this is not the case. What everyone seems to forget that despite the low labor force participation rate, the poorest are not starving to death; in fact, they're more likely to be obese than higher earners. The assumption that a UBI, on top of existing welfare programs, will make people more compelled to work seems like a stretch.
  • pdabbadabba 11y ago
    I would have thought that a UBI would replace most or all existing entitlement programs. But perhaps people have different ideas? And you're right, of course, that the poor in the U.S. generally are not literally starving. Though their poor health and high obesity rates are themselves symptoms of their limited access to healthy food, and difficulty maintaining a healthy lifestyle that may be due to other poverty-induced stressors.
    • DanielBMarkham 11y ago
      Yes, from the very limited research I've done, the key question in the UBI discussion is this: what the heck is it? It's a great slogan, but you have to add at least a dozen or two bullet points or it can mean so many things that it effectively means nothing.
      • pdabbadabba 11y ago
        Interesting. I have always thought that its simplicity was its primary virtue. The government winds down all of its existing entitlement programs (except, perhaps, for health insurance) and, instead, writes everyone a check for $x per month. The big question is just the right value of x. But it sounds like you've looked at this harder than I have. What are the questions I'm overlooking?
• anonymfus 11y ago
  Why not both?
  • walterstucco 11y ago
    because they need an enemy. just like Batman Without the bad guys is a rich prick who spent more on a bat costume than the regular people spend to eat in 10 years ...
  • aninhumer 11y ago
    Because once someone's needs are met by a Basic Income, it's much harder to get them to work for exploitative wages, so the minimum wage is redundant. If someone is accepting $1/hour for a job when their alternative is enjoying free time, then there's probably a good reason for it. Maybe they're learning skills, maybe the working is really fulfilling, or maybe they just got bored.
• DickingAround 11y ago
  It makes sense if-and-only-if that basic income isn't being doled out by the same organization which also runs the military-industrial or prison-industrial worlds. As an American, I think it's safe to say our federal government can't be trusted to not turn into a tyranny if it's everyone's primary employer. We would get even more massive corruption almost instantly. For example, some people would lobby to get those tax-revenue intended for the basic income to be redirected to other projects. The people wouldn't fight the loss of a $1/year/person here or there. There would also be reams of special cases to give some people more and some people less. And like today, some people would continue to carve out exceptions so they didn't have to pay those taxes to feed the basic income. That money would be divvied up every way except as a basic income and people would spend all their time fighting over who got it instead of generating the value that backs it. I don't live in the countries trying this so I can't say if it's safe to give their government that much power, but I know the US government is no where near ready for any more power than they already have. EDIT: Fixed a typo
  • Mikeb85 11y ago
    Unfortunately, in the US the alternative to government power is corporate power.
    • jff 11y ago
      > Unfortunately, in the US the alternative to government power is corporate power. What's the alternative elsewhere? Warlord power?
      • Mikeb85 11y ago
        Well, there are plenty of countries ruled by competing warlords... Ideally in a functioning democracy you can replace the government for one which represents the people, but in the US the 'establishment' controls them anyway. Simply put, better to demand a guaranteed income from the government, then to put it off for fear of them abusing power, only to cede control to entities who are worse...
    • 11y ago
• forrestthewoods 11y ago
  On the topic of immigrants and minimum wage/basic income. Brussels provided free housing, food, health care, and education to immigrants. And yet their immigrant community was still unable and/or unwilling to integrate. Basic income and/or higher minimum wage doesn't solve all problems. It even causes some new ones. Which isn't to say it isn't a good idea. But we probably don't discuss the problems as much as we should. I don't think it's the silver bullet many people wish it to be.
  • ptaipale 11y ago
    Yep. I think the biggest problem is the assumption that universal basic income would replace any existing welfare programs. In reality, it seems that this is not going to happen, because one size doesn't fit all, and existing welfare programs cover vastly differing cases at vastly differing cost levels (unemployment, disability, old age, serious and not-so-serious illnesses). Over here (Finland), the current government is planning a trial for UBI. It looks like pretty much none of the existing benefits can be cut because they are "fundamental human rights" or similar.
• kough 11y ago
  > No one wants to hire them at a high minimum wage, especially when locals are readily available The main drawback to a minimum wage is that it artificially increases the cost of labor, to the point where it's no longer worth it to an employer to hire a low-output employee. I think we'd all agree that increasing employment is a good goal, but an increased minimum wage actually hinders progress on that front. As the minimum wage increases, robots and other non-human investments start to look much, much more attractive. Many businesses would be happy to hire workers for less than minimum wage, but legally cannot, and so do not hire. Of course, it's a complicated issue. Look at the employment of those with disabilities like Down Syndrome [0], for example. Are these employees worth hiring at $7.50/hour? No, for the most part, they're not. Are some? Sure, but on average there's no way. But are they worth hiring at $2.00/hour? Yes, and they and their families are willing for them to work at that wage, because there are huge benefits to being productively employed. Recently these programs are coming "under attack" in various states. New Hampshire just made this practice illegal, for example [1]. We'll see how it plays out -- my bet is that a) few news outlets will follow up in a few years and see how many of these disabled workers are able to find new employment, and b) few disabled workers will be able to do so. [0] http://www.witf.org/news/2014/07/thousands-of-disabled-workers-in-pa-paid-far-below-minimum-wage.php http://www.witf.org/news/2014/07/thousands-of-disabled-worke... [1] http://www.care2.com/causes/new-hampshire-bans-subminimum-wage-for-people-with-disabilities.html http://www.care2.com/causes/new-hampshire-bans-subminimum-wa...
  • a3n 11y ago
    > The main drawback to a minimum wage is that it artificially increases the cost of labor, And? Why is that artificial increase a problem. Every law on the books is an artificial act. I don't see many people wringing their hands over the mortgage interest deduction, another of those artificial changes to the economy.
    • uxp100 11y ago
      If you read precisely past the point where you stopped quoting, you see their reasoning why this bad, the answer to your "And?" Whether or not you agree with that answer, shouldn't that answer be the part you respond to, instead of deliberately misrepresenting what the poster you were responding to was saying?
• RivieraKid 11y ago
  Negative income tax makes more sense to me. (NIT is a system where you either get or give money from/to the governement, depending on your income.) First it's both a simple welfare and tax system in one package. Basic income as typically understood is only half of the story. It's also easier to reason about, the money flows are way more obvious, it's immediately clear whether you are a net contributor or receiver and it's easier to set the (few) parameters.
  • mmanfrin 11y ago
    NIC is analogous to basic income. At a certain point, the taxes you pay in a basic income scheme are equal to the basic income you earn. Those who earn less than you are earning a NIC, those above are paying income tax. It is the same thing.
    • randyrand 11y ago
      No its not in practice. NIC is generally tied to working. A part time employed person will make less than a full time one. Under BI it is not tied to working. The incentives are worse.
      • mmanfrin 11y ago
        How? A full time employed person will still make more than a part time. Basic Income is flatly applied, everyone gets it; earning more then means you still have more. This isn't some cutoff-if-you-make-too-much thing.
        • randyrand 11y ago
          > Basic Income is flatly applied Thats the difference. Of course it depends on the model used, but generally NIC is applied based on how much you work. Generally a non-working person makes $0 , and a fully employed person makes the BI amount. To get the BI you need to work for it. That's the difference. To take this argument any further we would need to compare specific models. But NIC and BI are not the same and have similar but different purposes.
• yanilkr 11y ago
  A Basic Income from Govt comes at a huge price of loss of individual liberty. If someone gives you free stuff, they will expect controls like where you are allowed to spend your money and time. This model of taking from the productive sources and rewarding everyone else will have to break at a certain point. how come you get rewarded for enjoying the gossip column and I spend extra effort doing something else which is harder and my earnings are taken away? so lets put a control on how many hours someone else works. The productive people are dragged down and discouraged. Automation is replacing the labor that humans don't have to do. This frees up human capital so we can focus our endeavors somewhere else. America already provides free education up to high school and with this education why should people of next generation aim for minimum wage jobs? In a modern capitalistic economy it is very difficult to make money without adding value to society and this equilibrium is reached naturally due to free markets despite of politics meddling with it.
  • noiv 11y ago
    > A Basic Income from Govt comes at a huge price of loss of individual liberty. Funny, I always thought of UBI exactly the other way round. More precise I'd even say it is the most valuable opportunity at hand to generate sustainable values not degrading the planet in the aftermath.
  • enraged_camel 11y ago
    >>A Basic Income from Govt comes at a huge price of loss of individual liberty. If someone gives you free stuff, they will expect controls like where you are allowed to spend your money and time. No. The entire point of basic income is that it is unconditional. You get a check from the government at frequent intervals. Unlike food stamps, you can spend the money on whatever you want.
    • yanilkr 11y ago
      Do you think I can get the check in America and go and spend it outside America?
      • 11y ago
• Kenji 11y ago
  Yes, and a fish is smarter than a snail. We in the west are oblivious to the damage socialism like this does. Go ask people in former Eastern Bloc countries, they will tell you all you need to know about socialism.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
• ThrustVectoring 11y ago
  There's a non-obvious danger for basic income: rent-seeking behavior. Landlords charge whatever the market will bear, so there's a huge risk of funneling money through the recipients without improving their quality of life. And it isn't just landlords that hold that kind of rentier position - universities, for instance, would also extract more out of their position as employment gatekeepers. Attacking rent-seeking behavior would likely have a bigger impact on the everyday lives of the poor. Land-value taxes are a good place to start.
  • donatj 11y ago
    I think equally a problem with raising the minimum wage as well. If people make more money on average, I can now charge more for my goods with less balking. It would be illogical for me not to raise my prices. In the end quality of life stays the same. Asking people to be illogical is... illogical.
    • ThrustVectoring 11y ago
      People can still shop around, which is a balancing economic force. What makes people balk isn't just how much money they have, but the competing prices in the market. Less competitive markets will react to GBI to a much greater extent. I'd expect mobile phone service, internet service, housing, education, and healthcare to raise prices in response to GBI. I wouldn't expect the price of rice, steel, concrete, or airplane tickets to change much.
      • donatj 11y ago
        > I wouldn't expect the price of rice, steel, concrete, or airplane tickets to change much. Not at first, but the price of everything is connected eventually.
        • ThrustVectoring 11y ago
          My point is that price is the balancing point between selling for as much as you can find a buyer for, and buying for as little as you can find a seller for. Different goods have a different balance of power between buyers and sellers. Gasoline, for instance, has highly visible prices and little product differentiation. Choosing a different gas station is as easy as crossing the street. Customers will tolerate very little increase in price relative to the competition, so the price of gasoline is approximately equal to the cost of selling people gasoline.
• Joeboy 11y ago
  I would think that a requisite for a basic income happening would be tax revenues growing faster than the cost of living. Is that happening? I'd be surprised, but maybe somebody who knows better can enlighten me.
• vinceguidry 11y ago
  To give everyone in the US a basic income of $500 a month would cost ~$2 trillion dollars. Plus the cost of the inevitably humongous bureaucracy that will be necessary to administer it.
  • gknoy 11y ago
    How would there need to be a huge bureaucracy to administer it? The IRS already handles annual funds-transfer (and validation) for citizens. Moreover, replacing welfare (which has bureaucracy to check eligibility) with a flat "everyone gets paid X" would remove the need for the bureaucracy that _currently_ exists to administer welfare programs. It seems to me that there would be substantially lower administration costs for such a plan, since there's no need to verify whether people are eligible, other than filing tax returns. Perhaps verifying that someone is actually alive is necessary, but that still seems to be less than the current checks that exist.
    • vinceguidry 11y ago
      > The IRS already handles annual funds-transfer (and validation) for citizens. The IRS is still going to have to do its job, unless the USGov suddenly decides to not collect taxes anymore. So we're going to need a new agency. Or a new department of an existing agency. Either way it's not free. > since there's no need to verify whether people are eligible, other than filing tax returns. What makes you think there wouldn't inevitably have to be eligibility requirements? You'd have both politically-necessary requirements, (would felons be eligible? Even the ones in jail? What about non-citizens?) and also requirements borne from the need to not create perverse incentives. How old do you have to be to get basic income? If there aren't any age requirements then Octomom will be a role model instead of a laughingstock. All of these requirements, including more that neither me nor anyone else will have thought about until a year or two into the rollout, will increase the administrative costs. I don't see why people think it will be easy or free to do this. The whole thing reminds me of those "Things programmers believe about X" articles. Basic income is a good idea, but please don't pretend that it's going to be somehow different than every other welfare program. Sure, Basic Income is supposed to replace welfare, but has any of the proponents actually thought through what that actually would entail? There are a lot of welfare programs that address lots of needs. Not all of them are pure cash transfers, some of them do things like provide counseling. Some of them, like the food stamp program, provide greater value to the people they serve than if you'd just gave them a check. By replacing these programs with BI, you could be actually lowering their quality of life, like those people whose lives suddenly get awful after they get a raise at work because they no longer qualify for government assistance programs they relied on. I suspect that a few years into replacing welfare with BI, we'll suddenly start appreciating welfare.
• sambe 11y ago
  In one of the most flagrantly opportunistic political redefinitions I've ever seen, the UK recently raised the minimum wage and called it Living Wage: sufficiently accurate to be arguable but completely co-opting the concept without even acknowledging the intention. Several young, intelligent people I know actually believe the fuss about a basic income they've heard is just a minimum wage increase. I haven't run the numbers per-country but just the idea seems sufficiently interesting to be plausible. Allowing BS political branding to dilute it to "another random budget change" is a total disservice to not just the poorer part of society but also to the future of the social system.
• esaym 11y ago
  I'm never quite sure what to think about articles (or ideas) like this. I think of my grandfather who served in the air force for 20 years. When he needed more money, what did he do? He picked up a paper route early in the morning. What did he do when the paper route + air force income still wasn't enough? He started driving a taxi during evening hours. And when those three jobs weren't enough? He opened up a service station/gas shop to serve the other taxi drivers, which eventually morphed into a full blown auto service shop which allowed him to quite all his other jobs. As a software developer I am doing ok. I crawled my way up the ladder though from blue collar work. But I still have plenty of friends that never really went anywhere after high school. Some work fast food, some general labor, but they all make less than $8/hr. What do they do when then need money? Get a second job? No. They get on facebook and whine about it or make a gofundme account. One of my friend's even works at a warehouse 10 hours a day only 4 days a week. On those 3 days off he has does he work another job? No. He just plays video games all day, as does everyone else I mentioned. It seems that people nowadays seem to think they only need to work one job, and if that job doesn't pay enough, it is the job's fault. Granted, I know working 70+ hours a week at $6hr won't get you any where... But we all have to learn the climb the ladder. The complete lack of work ethic and skill sets I see today I don't think we can blame on the public schooling or government policies. I'd like to think it is the fault of the parents who never taught their own children to work. Perhaps they don't know how to work either. Yet I go back to thinking about my Grandfather. He lived out in the sticks and didn't really go to school. The family spent the money his dad made (at a brick factory) on buying supplies for gardening so they could have food. For meat they only had chickens and wild rabbits (both of which he refuses to eat to this day). So perhaps formal education isn't the magic bullet either. But something is amiss in our world today.
  • pasquinelli 11y ago
    people complain about money. people complain about a lot of things. people complain. this isn't something being amiss in the world today. it's pretty typical. shit, maybe your grampa even complained about money a time or two himself. just not to his grandkids, obviously. if there's a big difference in how people now view work compared to people in your grampa's time -- go back further and they might even have viewed wage labor with some contempt -- it's foolish to assume that the reason for it is that people today are different, rather than the circumstances they're in, which determine what constitutes a rational choice, have changed. maybe your friend who works 40 hours a week has good reason to not look for a second job for his three free days a week. maybe his assessment of his circumstances is actually better than your assessment of his circumstances, even if he complains about money now and again.
• karmacondon 11y ago
  The only way I can see Basic Income working is if the average person has a net income change of $0. That means someone making the average income of ~$45k/yr gets a $10k check from the government every year, but also has their taxes go up by ~$10k. I believe others have referred to this as a negative income tax. From what I can tell the average salary of a hackernews reader is above $100k. Each of us would probably end up paying ~$800+ per month in additional taxes, maybe up to $1,500/mo for those making that BigCo money. [1] The first question is, does that sound reasonable? Do you want to subtract $400 from each paycheck for the sake of total strangers? And I guess the second question is, why aren't we doing that now? How much do each of us currently give to support other people in various ways? I think Basic Income is a good idea. If people have more money, they'll be able to click on internet ads and buy things, and that will help the companies that many of us work for. But it won't be an even exchange and many people here will end up with less disposable income. I think that it will be worth it in the long run, to ensure that the economic engine that produces our paychecks continues to function. But I don't know if every UBI proponent is prepared to deal with the short term costs. [1] I completely made these numbers up. Could be more, could be less.
  • marcosdumay 11y ago
    Well, that's the idea. That's what the UI supporters are arguing for. In exchange of that money, given to "total strangers" we get to live in a better country, and have the security of knowing we won't end up homeless on the unlikely case we can't find work anymore (yeah, I pay for that safety today - both methods can be either added or replaced, replacing is harder). Here at Brazil the numbers would be lower overall, but the consequences get bigger. I think any implementation would need to start with a small value and increase slowly. It's not certain that the median wage is either viable or optimum, but might be a sane ceiling.
  • aninhumer 11y ago
    >Do you want to subtract $400 from each paycheck for the sake of total strangers? Yes, happily. >And I guess the second question is, why aren't we doing that now? Because there's no point in half measures. If a charity had some kind of pact scheme that implemented basic income outside the government, then I'd happily participate. But I don't imagine such a thing is really possible unless it includes everyone.
• Mz 11y ago
  Gig work that works would be smarter than both. One of the problems with basic income is that decouples work from income entirely. One of the things paid work accomplishes is encouraging certain kinds of human behaviors. From what I have read, every society that ever tried to promise that "we will take care of everyone, regardless of their contribution or behavior" had to reneg on that when it backfired on them. Decoupling income from being the work equivalent of "chained to the stove" is a great idea. Gig work that is well designed allows both people of low productivity and of high productivity to participate on their own terms. If someone who isn't very productive is willing to accept a de facto lower than minimum wage hourly rate, they should be allowed to make that choice. It empowers them in ways that welfare programs do not.
  • joeyespo 11y ago
    Gig work doesn't go away with BI. > One of the problems with basic income is that decouples work from income entirely It does, but not entirely. You can still work for extra income. It only breaks the dependency in the other direction. And that's its strength. The gig economy, while incredible and empowering, is also unstable and largely out of your control. You can have an influx of work at one moment, and near zero another. BI smooths this over by allowing you to survive during the dips. It also reduces the toxic stress contractors can experience even during a wave of work. When the gigs run out (and therefore, the income is less under BI--but not zero!), it gives you time to seek out new work without panicking.
• anexprogrammer 11y ago
  > some politicians in one of the world's most socialist countries, Sweden I almost stopped reading there. Sweden is not socialist, and never has been. Public ownership of production, workers control and management, social equality and a democratic plan of production. Nope, none of those. Just as much privatisation and market forces as other economies. They just chose to fund their welfare state, education, prison reform and pensions rather better than some others. There's been some drawbacks, but you won't be hearing many renditions of the Red Flag.
  • snowwrestler 11y ago
    "Socialism" in Western political discourse no longer means owning the means of production. It did, once, but that idea was so obviously discredited during the 20th century that no one takes it seriously anymore. So "socialism" today (usually used with some variant of "democracy") has been repurposed to mean a political ideology that values government social support programs over low taxation.
    • anexprogrammer 11y ago
      By Western do you mean US? I have never once heard it used thus in UK and European news and political discussion. Not even by the Tories attempting to discredit some aspect of the discussion. Perhaps the Daily Mail might, but they're bonkers, and have been since inception. :) You'd probably hear discussion of the Nordic approach use the term "Nordic Model", or rarely "social democracy". They're seeking to remain strictly capitalist but promote more economic security at the same time.
• zxcvvcxz 11y ago
  > Besides, Sweden has one of the rich world's biggest gaps between native and immigrant employment rates. Youth joblessness is 70 percent higher among the foreign-born than among Swedes. Lowering the minimum wage could draw more of the new, mainly Middle Eastern population, into the workforce and reduce social and ethnic tension. A minimum wage is simply not moral. It prevents me and you from entering into an employment agreement with which we may both benefit. Instead, the government is telling me how I have to interact with you. The left-wing philosophy of a minimum livable wage is ironically hurting the new immigrants to these countries. The reality is that first-world nations have higher employment standards because citizens are more educated and capable. Instead of giving new immigrants, who are almost certainly less educated and capable (remember, they're trying to move to countries with better opportunities) the ability to work and gain experience, we leave them with little options. And like the quote says, it's just bad for assimilation into the host society. Being able to work is fantastic for that. You have to learn at least a bit of the language. Interact with the people. Learn to follow the laws and customs of the new country. Without work opportunities, immigrants can often wind up stuck in their segregated ghettos. And high unemployment invariably leads to a lower quality of life. Abolish the minimum wage. Give new immigrants the opportunities they want.
  • bluecalm 11y ago
    >>A minimum wage is simply not moral. It prevents me and you from entering into an employment agreement with which we may both benefit. Instead, the government is telling me how I have to interact with you. This argument doesn't make any sense. It is often the case that preventing people from entering a contract thy both benefit from is beneficial for society. It's a standard social dilemma example of which is tragedy of commons. You may argue against minimum wage but "simply not moral" is just a wrong argument. This kind of thinking is what frustrates me about common libertarian arguments. You can't just ignore social dilemma implications when arguing for voluntarily contract being the end of it.
    • jrs235 11y ago
      I lean libertarian. I don't think the argument is as much libertarian as it is Austrian Economics. What gets me going is that most GOP/Republican/conservative folks that clamor against the minimum wage are Keynesians. And if they are then they condradict themselves when they tout the importance of a strong economy and GDP yet argue against a minimum wage. If you're Keynesian you believe demand drives the economy and GDP. Well if the majority/working class doesn't have disposable income then they can't buy all the trinkets and toys that companies are producing thus grinding things to a halt. There's only so much demand for yachts. Austrians can, in a less contradictory way, argue against a minimum wage. But everyone can't continue to ignore parts of reality. Yes, there are social implications and to dismiss them is no different than dismissing emotions in arguments and marketing, or politics in offices. They exist and must be included and dealt with when trying to make "rational" and prudent choices.
• partiallypro 11y ago
  Even Milton Friedman argued that a basic income was better than a minimum wage, but a negative income tax would be better than that. Minimum wages cause labor misallocation and hurt small businesses. It's often that larger companies will push for a minimum wage hike because it will destroy the margins of their small competitors; then they can use their pricing power later to offset their margin loss.
• Overtonwindow 11y ago
  My primary concern about instituting a basic income is that these things have a tendency to always want to rise. It then becomes a voting platform for politicians. Vote for me and I will get your basic income raised. I think anytime you promise a populous something for nothing, you create dangerous precedents that can spin out of control. I'm for increased minimum wage and price caps, but not a minimum income with no commitment. On the other hand, if the federal government did not give away all of the profits from American natural resources, and instead took a percentage like most developed countries - and the state of Alaska - that money could be turned around into a basic income for all. That I believe is where a basic income should come from: use a nationally produced commodity sold abroad and the profits therein to give back to the citizenry.
• elcct 11y ago
  Basic income is the most stupid idea presented here. It is basically a new zero.
• leroy_masochist 11y ago
  Bershidsky really drops the ball when he makes the following point: "One problem with a universal basic income, of course, is that it will make a country attractive to even more immigrants from poor countries where 550 euros a month looks like a princely amount. Keeping borders open will hardly be an option." What he's missing here is that the UBI is only payed to citizens. If you get rid of the minimum wage (because everyone gets paid the UBI no matter what), then citizens become much more willing to work for low wages, because their basic cost of living is already paid-for. By contrast, UBI would not be paid to immigrants. Non-citizens would still be working in the US to some extent, but the incentive for people to sneak across the border would be severely reduced if prevailing low-skill wages fell from $10 to, say, $5. It's also worth mentioning that to the extent that deterring undocumented immigration is the policy of the United States, doing it with economic incentives is (IMO) a much more ethically sound solution than doing it with walls, violence, and incarceration.
  • kough 11y ago
    Fantastic point, I have to admit I missed the consequences of that, too.
• dools 11y ago
  In addition to universal basic income the government should guarantee a job to anyone who wants to work, which effectively sets a minimum wage[0] Also, it's stupid to exclude immigrants or to have a "closed border" policy, because more people means more labour and more resources. The economy booms BECAUSE of immigration if handled correctly. Economics is such a confused profession ... y'all must be embarrassed. [0] http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=23719 http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=23719
• ap22213 11y ago
  Someday soon we will have cures for cancers, technology to repair aging, colonies on Mars, unlimited clean power, and maybe even some strong AI. Yet, Humans will still be debating economics, taxes, and the morality of work. Can I ask you amazingly brilliant, creative and tenacious thinkers to put 'ending work' up in that list somewhere? My kids and grandkids really shouldn't have to work 70-80 hour weeks, should they?
• MaricopaAz 11y ago
  (Cross-posted from a similar thread) Has anybody studied the outcomes on American Indian reservations from having basic income guaranteed for generations? I'm not an expert or well-read in this field, but I think anybody advocating basic income would be interested to visit a reservation and observe the lifestyles, dreams, goals, and successes found there.
• tryitnow 11y ago
  The problem I have articles like these is that they create a false dichotomy. It's possible to have both. These two policies solve very different problems. The Basic Income supports the notion that it's not cool to force people to work for food, shelter, etc. The minimum wage is supported for a bunch of different reasons, most of which I disagree with. But the one I do agree with is that a minimum wage sets a floor on the marginal productivity of labor. This will force employees and employers to improve the productivity of labor - a win all around. I support the minimum wage because I think low wages are a result of humans behaving irrationally in the market. Employers usually don't think seriously enough about productivity improvements and many employees don't invest sufficiently in training and development to improve their marginal productivity. The problem I have with minimum wage legislation is that it too often takes place in a vacuum. Look even Marxist economists agree raising the minimum wage can lead to job losses, so let's prepare for that by investing in training programs (vo-tech and community college seem like good bets).
• dredmorbius 11y ago
  The wages of labour are what supports and enables labour, both in the present, and the future. It is the cost of labour. A living wage pays for the maintenance of labour. Its feeding, housing, clothing, and education. It pays for the upkeep of a family, and the raising and education of children (the next generation of labour). Failing to pay a living wage is the same thing as buying any factor of production below cost. While it may return a short-term advantage, it fails to ensure the continuation of supply. Worse, it creates a cascade failure in which ever higher and more skilled ranks of labour find their own wages and compensation falling, that ripples through society. An enterprise which cannot afford to pay the full cost of its labour isn't a productive economic activity. Or perhaps, it is one which faces significant positive externalities such that its own ability to command compensation is diminished. An enterprise which can afford to pay the full cost of provisioning labour but which does not is doing nothing more than transferring wealth from that labour pool, or from the public purse if the that purse is then called on to support the labourers, into its owners pockets as profit. The words are mine, but the ideas are Adam Smiths, very clearly expressed in The Wealth of Nations. I mentioned the cascade failure. Smith talks at length of the conditions of workers in England (middling), the American colonies (quite good), and in China (exceedingly poor). He notes that it's the growth rather than the size of the economy which seems to promote high wages, which is interesting to consider. Smith doesn't describe much on how to ensure that labour does earn its fair share, though suggests that the right to organise would be a benefit. My thoughts are leaning toward not only that but institution of an employer of last resort, with a minimum wage established through same. This would act much as a central bank does as lender of last resourt, but as an endless source of labour demand rather than currency. The demand might be social projects which cannot themselves command market compensation, or as a market broker for labour (effectively the Mother of All Labour Unions), to which companies could bid on work (the difference coming from the public purse via taxation). More on this and Smith generally: Why you should read Smith: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4cyroa/adam_smiths_lost_legacy_or_why_you_should_read/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4cyroa/adam_sm... Smith on wages: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2311mb/adam_smith_on_living_wage_national_wealth_growth/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2311mb/adam_sm... https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1z5vfb/thoughts_on_minimum_wage_enterprise_viability/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1z5vfb/thought...
• faint_coder 11y ago
  Basic income is dangerous for the society. The basic human being is, unfortunately, almost like an animal, he likes to sleep, eat, do nothing: you have to give him/her a "bone", a prize, to make him/her doing things. This prize is wage. If you give money to human beings for free, nobody will do jobs anymore. Only those who want to be richer, but are far less. You'll see people that will choose for a basic income, instead of a basic_insome+N, to clean dumpsters. Why someone would choose basic_income+N when that N is relatively small to clean dumpsters instead of staying home doing nothing? Give a basic income to everyone and NOBODY will clean dumpsters anymore, unless you set that N relatively high. Or basic income relatively low. Basic income will destroy the entire society in few months. Don't look at those nordic countries which applied basic income and the society is "working" well, because it depends from people, culture, and other factors. I'm from italy, and I can GUARANTEE that if do give basic income to italians, the society will fall badly.
  • kilotaras 11y ago
    >If you give money to human beings for free, nobody will do jobs anymore All BI proposals I saw only include housing, utilities, healthcare(through central system) and food. People would still want to go out, watch movies, play with the new shiny iPhone, etc. Most of the society already can get proposed amount from investments. If we talk $1000 monthly and 5% ROR (less than SP500) you have to have $240k in investments. That's easily achievable, especially if you already live on $1000 in preparation to doing nothing. > NOBODY will clean dumpsters anymore, unless you set that N relatively high And why should cleaning dumpsters be a low paying job? You said it yourself - it's crucial for society. And don't forget about elephant in the room - automation. Upward salary pressure puts pressure on making each individual worker more productive.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]