3 ms·

I find it very naive to assume that basic income will be implemented as a simple, straightforward, clean replacement of our current welfare systems. Our curren

I find it very naive to assume that basic income will be implemented as a simple, straightforward, clean replacement of our current welfare systems. Our current, messy, complicated, unsuccessful welfare systems is the result of many powerful political, social, and moral tendencies and forces, which will reshape basic income in the same way they shaped the welfare system in the first place. There will be many attempts to give some people more income than others -- and some of those attempts will be justified. After several years, we will end up re-creating our current welfare systems, for the same reasons we created them in the first place. Society is not a clean slate upon which any policies can be successfully imposed. Unless those political, social, and moral forces change or disappear, basic income won't be very basic after the politicians, and the voters, get their hands on it. Tyler Cowen's thoughts on the matter are very perceptive: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/what-are-some-of-the-biggest-problems-with-a-guaranteed-annual-income.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/wha...

someguydave 10y ago
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/05/arnold_kling_on_1.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/05/arnold_kling_on_1.h... Arnold Kling's opined on this point (the particular distortion of the US political process) in his interview with Russ Roberts on the EconTalk podcast: Kling: Well, let me make another point before I get back to that. Which is a point I also make in the book. Which is that, it isn't that the political process kind of just makes random errors. I think it actually makes very systematic errors. What it does is it always seems to work in the direction of subsidizing demand for something and restricting supply for that same thing.
- twblalock 10y ago
  It's not just the US that is like this. Every country is. Put another way: Things are the way they are for powerful reasons (which may or may not be justifiable). You can't just ignore these reasons when you create policy, otherwise those reasons will cause things to revert to the way they were before. Proponents of basic income will have to overcome many peoples' moral intuitions about who deserves help, and who should have to work for a living. If these moral intuitions remain the same, basic income won't be basic for long -- people will vote to give more money to the disabled, less money to felons, and so on. Should people receive basic income while incarcerated due to a criminal conviction? Someone will come along who suggests that members of certain racial groups should receive more money in the basic income program as a form of affirmative action, to compensate for past wrongs. Maybe people who choose to work should get more money under basic income, as an incentive for others to choose to work. Should people who inherit a lot of money have their basic income reduced? I think it's pretty clear that the first time someone makes a change of the kind I listed above, the cat will be out of the bag, and basic income won't be "basic" income anymore. Then the argument that basic income should treat everyone the same will become useless to defend against further changes. You can't really preserve the purity of a policy design when the voters want to change it. There is also the danger of everyone voting to increase their income, to the extent that the program runs out of money. I think these moral intuitions can be changed, but only through a gradual phase-in of benefits over time. Of course, that's exactly what has been happening over the past century or so, and it's what led to the welfare systems we have today.
  - jpindar 10y ago
    And then the threat of losing your income becomes just another way for the government to control people's behavior.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

someguydave 10y ago

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/05/arnold_kling_on_1.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/05/arnold_kling_on_1.h... Arnold Kling's opined on this point (the particular distortion of the US political process) in his interview with Russ Roberts on the EconTalk podcast: Kling: Well, let me make another point before I get back to that. Which is a point I also make in the book. Which is that, it isn't that the political process kind of just makes random errors. I think it actually makes very systematic errors. What it does is it always seems to work in the direction of subsidizing demand for something and restricting supply for that same thing.

twblalock 10y ago
It's not just the US that is like this. Every country is. Put another way: Things are the way they are for powerful reasons (which may or may not be justifiable). You can't just ignore these reasons when you create policy, otherwise those reasons will cause things to revert to the way they were before. Proponents of basic income will have to overcome many peoples' moral intuitions about who deserves help, and who should have to work for a living. If these moral intuitions remain the same, basic income won't be basic for long -- people will vote to give more money to the disabled, less money to felons, and so on. Should people receive basic income while incarcerated due to a criminal conviction? Someone will come along who suggests that members of certain racial groups should receive more money in the basic income program as a form of affirmative action, to compensate for past wrongs. Maybe people who choose to work should get more money under basic income, as an incentive for others to choose to work. Should people who inherit a lot of money have their basic income reduced? I think it's pretty clear that the first time someone makes a change of the kind I listed above, the cat will be out of the bag, and basic income won't be "basic" income anymore. Then the argument that basic income should treat everyone the same will become useless to defend against further changes. You can't really preserve the purity of a policy design when the voters want to change it. There is also the danger of everyone voting to increase their income, to the extent that the program runs out of money. I think these moral intuitions can be changed, but only through a gradual phase-in of benefits over time. Of course, that's exactly what has been happening over the past century or so, and it's what led to the welfare systems we have today.
- jpindar 10y ago
  And then the threat of losing your income becomes just another way for the government to control people's behavior.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]