6 ms·

> You have to fill in many papers, prove that you don’t have sufficient income or any valuable property, go through many humiliating and intrusive controls. If

newjersey 10y ago
> You have to fill in many papers, prove that you don’t have sufficient income or any valuable property, go through many humiliating and intrusive controls. If you want to earn (a small amount of) money without working, then you must endure it all. In most cases it is necessary to seek the help of a social worker to carry out the procedure in its entirety. This is exactly the reason I want basic income. I want nobody to feel like someone else is cheating the system. I hear a bunch of people (even old people who are on medicare and social security!) who will talk trash about "welfare queens". It is not like we can't afford it. There will be short term pain, of course but I think we will have greater solidarity. This is good for the 0.01% as well because if you are doing really well, you want to keep the ship steady. (Well to be cynical, you could try to keep everyone else fighting amongst themselves but any arsonist will tell you that a fire once started won't spare the people who started it.)
- blahi 10y ago
  And what happens in the very long term? What happens when kids are raised with the attitude that they are guaranteed to survive on basic income? What happens when their number grows? What happens when that large group feels that bare survival doesn't cut it any more and want more? What happens if the numbers actually don't pan out but scared politicians doon't want to give up power and cook the books for decades? Remember that after similar initiatives short and mid-term gains were huge, but in the long-term they lead to apathy, corruption and very uncompetitive economy. There are two states in nature. You either grow or you shrink. You remove the incentive to grow and guess what happens next. Or if you want to really start thinking hard, maybe you should ask yourself what happens when everybody has X in money and businesses raise their prices accordingly?
  - glenda 10y ago
    Your comment made me a bit sad because I read it as "What happens when those who struggle everyday to survive no longer have to?" - I understand your fear of entitlement etc... but I don't think things could get much worse than where we are now. For instance, "affluenza" is an acceptable excuse for killing a person in the US.
    - esarbe 10y ago
      Hey glenda, I wanted to congratulate you on your enduring politeness and civility while enduring exactly the opposite. I thank you for your tone and your contribution. While I may not agree with you, I applaud the manner in which you communicate. It's people like you that really make HN a different place.
      - glenda 10y ago
        Thank you! This means a lot to me.
  - ntaenta 10y ago
    > What happens when kids are raised with the attitude that they are guaranteed to survive on basic income? When kids are raised without the persistent threat of not surviving? They'll stand a better chance of flourishing and reaching their full potential, like many of us here on HN who have an affluent background.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - geezerjay 10y ago
      > When kids are raised without the persistent threat of not surviving? Having to contribute to society by keeping a job, and using the income of said job to finance your cost of living is far from being a life-risking enterprise. You're trying to avoid the point by inventing absurd emotional examples.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  >> It is not like we can't afford it. Have you looked at the US Economy lately? (Jan 2016) Why 2016 keeps getting uglier for US economy - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/29/why-2016-keeps-getting-uglier-for-us-economy.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/29/why-2016-keeps-getting-uglier... (April 2016) Americans' confidence in economy at 2016 low - http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/economy/us-economic-confidence-low-gallup/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/economy/us-economic-con... (June 2016) The next recession is already here—and there isn't much the Fed can do - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/the-next-recession-is-already-here-and-there-isnt-much-the-fed-can-do-commentary.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/the-next-recession-is-already... I'm all for a basic income for lower income families, but I'm not sure how routinely volatile our economy is, we really afford this long term. What happens when you put something like this in place, and then can't afford it? There's a long list of government programs already awash in waste and mismanagement. I'm not sure another program (which would have to take the place of other programs - WIC, TEFAP, HUD, etc) is really going to solve the problem.
  - specialist 10y ago
    I'm all for a basic income for lower income families Universal basic income is a reform that satisfies both the left and right. My conservative brethren are totally on board. Not perfect, but good enough, and better than what we have now.
    - newjersey 10y ago
      > Universal basic income is a reform that satisfies both the left and right. My conservative brethren are totally on board. Not perfect, but good enough, and better than what we have now. Economists will undoubtedly turn up their noses when not so well learned people like me start explaining our position because it is clearly too stupid for them. If we have $100 available and three people: one who doesn't need any money, one who needs $20, and one who needs $50 to survive, clearly it is best to give nothing to the first person, #20 to the second person, and $50 to the third person. Look, we were economically efficient and now $30 can go towards maintaining the system! What I propose is that the $100 should be divided more like $33 each with just $1 going towards maintaining the project itself. This came up before when talking about college education and whether the government should subsidize college education for the wealthy. My answer is yes! Of course, the government should pay for college for everyone, even if that person is Bill Gates' son. Similarly, should the government pay for Bill Gates' health care expenses under a single payer universal health care system? I say again Yes! We should not discriminate against the wealthy. Sure, it might result is less care for the poor but at the end of the day, I think it is better for everyone.
zaguios 10y ago
Another things I noticed is how it pointed out how France's system of basic income gave people less incentive to work and thus contributed to 10% unemployment. Isn't that also another reason many people advocate for basic income since with all our technological advancement it shouldn't actually be a requirement for everyone to work? Isn't that proof that basic income is having it's desired effect despite what appears to be a very mediocre implementation? I only read through about half of the article, but I didn't really see any real reasons why basic income would be bad. Most of the arguments boiled down to "That's not how we do things now". I ended up coming away from this article with more faith in the potential for basic income than I did going into it as none of these arguments were very compelling.
- specialist 10y ago
  how France's system of basic income gave people less incentive to work As a regular reader of mondaynote.com (and so therefore an expert), I have the impression that France has many other obstacles to entrepreneurship. Like their labor laws. It seems to me that universal basic income, alongside universal health care and other reforms, would greatly reduce the need for stultifying labor laws. More simply, employers could hire and fire as needed.
  - zaguios 10y ago
    Interesting, I am not familiar with the job situation in France so I was basing the sentence on this quote from the article "Second, it has often been blamed for providing an incentive to give up looking for a job". It sounds like whether or not the statement is true as you mentioned basic income still provides an overall benefit.
    - kmkemp 10y ago
      UBI doesn't disincentivize work. If I told you that I would give you $10k/year unconditionally, would you quit your day job? What if you were currently unemployed, would you stop looking for a job? There is no reason to as my payment to you doesn't depend on if you get a job or not.
fourneau 10y ago
As much as I disagree with the author, the reason why RMI is brought up is to highlight the next point of "Silicon Valley Hates / Ignores Politics". I think the difference in applicability is understood, otherwise this would be a really naively written article... > So you could argue that the “RMI/RSA” is basic income, except maybe for the paperware frictions that it inflicts on those who are eligible and that could be removed thanks to technology. Accordingly, those in favor of basic income should pay attention to the “RMI/RSA” and draw appropriate lessons: it’s not simple (at all); it has adverse economic effects; and it is widely denounced, notably on the right, as “assistance” (assistanat) that deprives those who claim the benefit from any incentive to look for a job, thus making them live off the middle class taxpayers. If you know politics, you can guess where this is going. Unfortunately, politics is not Silicon Valley’s strong suit.
Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
I wrote the article. This is not my point. The French RMI was enacted in 1988 with wide bipartisan support and really resembled a UBI at the time. Then, in the following decades, many people, notably on the right, started to hate it and, as a result, new, conservative rules made it more difficult to claim the benefit. (Just like, for instance, Republican legislatures all around the US make it more complicated to vote, not because it's a necessary procedural evil, but because it's in the political interest of the Republican party.) I think that the same fate awaits UBI if it were to be enacted (which I doubt, but that's another story).
1024core 10y ago
Then you didn't read and understand the article. His point is that this is how the system will eventually end up. When the people see their taxes go up substantially, they'll vote the UBI supporters out, bring in a means test and you end up with this bureaucracy. As an example: see how quickly the Democrats lost control of both the houses once Obamacare was passed. And see how the Republicans are continuously trying to kill Obamacare.

newjersey 10y ago

> You have to fill in many papers, prove that you don’t have sufficient income or any valuable property, go through many humiliating and intrusive controls. If you want to earn (a small amount of) money without working, then you must endure it all. In most cases it is necessary to seek the help of a social worker to carry out the procedure in its entirety. This is exactly the reason I want basic income. I want nobody to feel like someone else is cheating the system. I hear a bunch of people (even old people who are on medicare and social security!) who will talk trash about "welfare queens". It is not like we can't afford it. There will be short term pain, of course but I think we will have greater solidarity. This is good for the 0.01% as well because if you are doing really well, you want to keep the ship steady. (Well to be cynical, you could try to keep everyone else fighting amongst themselves but any arsonist will tell you that a fire once started won't spare the people who started it.)

blahi 10y ago
And what happens in the very long term? What happens when kids are raised with the attitude that they are guaranteed to survive on basic income? What happens when their number grows? What happens when that large group feels that bare survival doesn't cut it any more and want more? What happens if the numbers actually don't pan out but scared politicians doon't want to give up power and cook the books for decades? Remember that after similar initiatives short and mid-term gains were huge, but in the long-term they lead to apathy, corruption and very uncompetitive economy. There are two states in nature. You either grow or you shrink. You remove the incentive to grow and guess what happens next. Or if you want to really start thinking hard, maybe you should ask yourself what happens when everybody has X in money and businesses raise their prices accordingly?
- glenda 10y ago
  Your comment made me a bit sad because I read it as "What happens when those who struggle everyday to survive no longer have to?" - I understand your fear of entitlement etc... but I don't think things could get much worse than where we are now. For instance, "affluenza" is an acceptable excuse for killing a person in the US.
  - esarbe 10y ago
    Hey glenda, I wanted to congratulate you on your enduring politeness and civility while enduring exactly the opposite. I thank you for your tone and your contribution. While I may not agree with you, I applaud the manner in which you communicate. It's people like you that really make HN a different place.
    - glenda 10y ago
      Thank you! This means a lot to me.
- ntaenta 10y ago
  > What happens when kids are raised with the attitude that they are guaranteed to survive on basic income? When kids are raised without the persistent threat of not surviving? They'll stand a better chance of flourishing and reaching their full potential, like many of us here on HN who have an affluent background.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - geezerjay 10y ago
    > When kids are raised without the persistent threat of not surviving? Having to contribute to society by keeping a job, and using the income of said job to finance your cost of living is far from being a life-risking enterprise. You're trying to avoid the point by inventing absurd emotional examples.
at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> It is not like we can't afford it. Have you looked at the US Economy lately? (Jan 2016) Why 2016 keeps getting uglier for US economy - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/29/why-2016-keeps-getting-uglier-for-us-economy.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/29/why-2016-keeps-getting-uglier... (April 2016) Americans' confidence in economy at 2016 low - http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/economy/us-economic-confidence-low-gallup/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/economy/us-economic-con... (June 2016) The next recession is already here—and there isn't much the Fed can do - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/the-next-recession-is-already-here-and-there-isnt-much-the-fed-can-do-commentary.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/the-next-recession-is-already... I'm all for a basic income for lower income families, but I'm not sure how routinely volatile our economy is, we really afford this long term. What happens when you put something like this in place, and then can't afford it? There's a long list of government programs already awash in waste and mismanagement. I'm not sure another program (which would have to take the place of other programs - WIC, TEFAP, HUD, etc) is really going to solve the problem.
- specialist 10y ago
  I'm all for a basic income for lower income families Universal basic income is a reform that satisfies both the left and right. My conservative brethren are totally on board. Not perfect, but good enough, and better than what we have now.
  - newjersey 10y ago
    > Universal basic income is a reform that satisfies both the left and right. My conservative brethren are totally on board. Not perfect, but good enough, and better than what we have now. Economists will undoubtedly turn up their noses when not so well learned people like me start explaining our position because it is clearly too stupid for them. If we have $100 available and three people: one who doesn't need any money, one who needs $20, and one who needs $50 to survive, clearly it is best to give nothing to the first person, #20 to the second person, and $50 to the third person. Look, we were economically efficient and now $30 can go towards maintaining the system! What I propose is that the $100 should be divided more like $33 each with just $1 going towards maintaining the project itself. This came up before when talking about college education and whether the government should subsidize college education for the wealthy. My answer is yes! Of course, the government should pay for college for everyone, even if that person is Bill Gates' son. Similarly, should the government pay for Bill Gates' health care expenses under a single payer universal health care system? I say again Yes! We should not discriminate against the wealthy. Sure, it might result is less care for the poor but at the end of the day, I think it is better for everyone.

zaguios 10y ago

Another things I noticed is how it pointed out how France's system of basic income gave people less incentive to work and thus contributed to 10% unemployment. Isn't that also another reason many people advocate for basic income since with all our technological advancement it shouldn't actually be a requirement for everyone to work? Isn't that proof that basic income is having it's desired effect despite what appears to be a very mediocre implementation? I only read through about half of the article, but I didn't really see any real reasons why basic income would be bad. Most of the arguments boiled down to "That's not how we do things now". I ended up coming away from this article with more faith in the potential for basic income than I did going into it as none of these arguments were very compelling.

specialist 10y ago
how France's system of basic income gave people less incentive to work As a regular reader of mondaynote.com (and so therefore an expert), I have the impression that France has many other obstacles to entrepreneurship. Like their labor laws. It seems to me that universal basic income, alongside universal health care and other reforms, would greatly reduce the need for stultifying labor laws. More simply, employers could hire and fire as needed.
- zaguios 10y ago
  Interesting, I am not familiar with the job situation in France so I was basing the sentence on this quote from the article "Second, it has often been blamed for providing an incentive to give up looking for a job". It sounds like whether or not the statement is true as you mentioned basic income still provides an overall benefit.
  - kmkemp 10y ago
    UBI doesn't disincentivize work. If I told you that I would give you $10k/year unconditionally, would you quit your day job? What if you were currently unemployed, would you stop looking for a job? There is no reason to as my payment to you doesn't depend on if you get a job or not.

fourneau 10y ago

As much as I disagree with the author, the reason why RMI is brought up is to highlight the next point of "Silicon Valley Hates / Ignores Politics". I think the difference in applicability is understood, otherwise this would be a really naively written article... > So you could argue that the “RMI/RSA” is basic income, except maybe for the paperware frictions that it inflicts on those who are eligible and that could be removed thanks to technology. Accordingly, those in favor of basic income should pay attention to the “RMI/RSA” and draw appropriate lessons: it’s not simple (at all); it has adverse economic effects; and it is widely denounced, notably on the right, as “assistance” (assistanat) that deprives those who claim the benefit from any incentive to look for a job, thus making them live off the middle class taxpayers. If you know politics, you can guess where this is going. Unfortunately, politics is not Silicon Valley’s strong suit.

Nicolas_Colin 10y ago

I wrote the article. This is not my point. The French RMI was enacted in 1988 with wide bipartisan support and really resembled a UBI at the time. Then, in the following decades, many people, notably on the right, started to hate it and, as a result, new, conservative rules made it more difficult to claim the benefit. (Just like, for instance, Republican legislatures all around the US make it more complicated to vote, not because it's a necessary procedural evil, but because it's in the political interest of the Republican party.) I think that the same fate awaits UBI if it were to be enacted (which I doubt, but that's another story).

1024core 10y ago

Then you didn't read and understand the article. His point is that this is how the system will eventually end up. When the people see their taxes go up substantially, they'll vote the UBI supporters out, bring in a means test and you end up with this bureaucracy. As an example: see how quickly the Democrats lost control of both the houses once Obamacare was passed. And see how the Republicans are continuously trying to kill Obamacare.