4 ms·

Basic income isn't some magical panacea. It does exactly the same thing as social security/welfare, but slightly more efficiently. It has the same problem: the

by bicubic 10y ago

Basic income isn't some magical panacea. It does exactly the same thing as social security/welfare, but slightly more efficiently. It has the same problem: the rich aren't going to give up money to make it work. Would you accept a 10% tax hike on your income? Because that's roughly what it would take to make basic income provide anything resembling a quality of life to the incoming jobless class.

FussyZeus 10y ago
Would I give up 10% of my income to prevent riots and a rural/urban civil war? Yes, yes I would and frankly if you wouldn't you're being penny wise and pound foolish. You can't just write off the entire blue collar class as they slide into starvation and go "well that's unfortunate," those are people, and more specifically people a lot more used to surviving off the grid than you are. We need them a lot more than they need us.
- sheeshkebab 10y ago
  ^ , yes that's the main reason why rich/richer will tolerate. People without money will tolerate it for a few years, but since it's 99% of Population it will eventually all explode and either slide into chaos, or some war. Don't need to look further than czarist Russia/Soviet Union to see what happens. 10/20% tax hike is peanuts in comparison to getting you and your family shot.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Touche 10y ago
  I wasn't aware that we were on the brink of a civil war.
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    Not yet, check back after truck driving gets automated on a large scale. That's going to be a big tipping event and we need to get ready for it. Also, defending the exploitation of groups of people with "they are probably not going to kill us yet" isn't a great line of thought. Just saying.
    - Touche 10y ago
      I think you're jumping the gun just a bit, is all I'm saying. You're talking about widespread automation with the assumption that there won't be other jobs created as a result of it. Also, how do you plan to compensate for the lower buying power people will have when their taxes are increased by 10%? Are we all going to live in government subsidized housing?
edblarney 10y ago
UBI only has a theoretical efficiency. The idea that governments are going to close massive departments of staff due to 'efficiency' is extremely naive - and belies a misunderstanding of how that kind of employment works. Governments are not efficient, generally. In some areas - more than others. 'Teaching' I think is fairly efficient, it's hard to screw up. Building roads, similarly. But other functions can get way out of whack. Governments on some level employ as a means of redistribution. My sister in law works for Canadian government - there are 600 people to 'research' and 'strategy' for prisons etc. and yet we have no real meaningful reform, experimentation or thoughtfulness in our prison system. It's nearly as basic as it was 50 years ago. So why 600 people? Because they can. Government unions are the most powerful entities on planet earth. Those jobs will be reallocated elsewhere and there will be no 'operational savings' from UBI. More likely - they will increase the regulation/complexity of it so that it actually does require 'tons of overhead' to manage. UBI is a great theoretical idea, that doesn't meet the test of pragmatism. It will be about as effective as other forms of welfare. A cheaper experiment would be to simply allow people on welfare to have some kind of job/income. No need to re-write the book to see if that works out, which is one of the big things they are trying to find out with UBI.
dagw 10y ago
It does exactly the same thing as social security/welfare Not at all. The main problem with social security/welfare is that getting and staying on it is basically a job in itself. And the fear of accidentally doing something that will get you kicked out is enough to make people avoid taking shorter term work, freelancing, getting further education etc. etc. Take away all the effort and uncertainty of getting and staying on those programs and people will be freed up to potentially make all kinds of changes to their lives that are currently not possible.

by bicubic 10y ago

FussyZeus 10y ago

Would I give up 10% of my income to prevent riots and a rural/urban civil war? Yes, yes I would and frankly if you wouldn't you're being penny wise and pound foolish. You can't just write off the entire blue collar class as they slide into starvation and go "well that's unfortunate," those are people, and more specifically people a lot more used to surviving off the grid than you are. We need them a lot more than they need us.

sheeshkebab 10y ago
^ , yes that's the main reason why rich/richer will tolerate. People without money will tolerate it for a few years, but since it's 99% of Population it will eventually all explode and either slide into chaos, or some war. Don't need to look further than czarist Russia/Soviet Union to see what happens. 10/20% tax hike is peanuts in comparison to getting you and your family shot.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Touche 10y ago
I wasn't aware that we were on the brink of a civil war.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  Not yet, check back after truck driving gets automated on a large scale. That's going to be a big tipping event and we need to get ready for it. Also, defending the exploitation of groups of people with "they are probably not going to kill us yet" isn't a great line of thought. Just saying.
  - Touche 10y ago
    I think you're jumping the gun just a bit, is all I'm saying. You're talking about widespread automation with the assumption that there won't be other jobs created as a result of it. Also, how do you plan to compensate for the lower buying power people will have when their taxes are increased by 10%? Are we all going to live in government subsidized housing?

edblarney 10y ago

UBI only has a theoretical efficiency. The idea that governments are going to close massive departments of staff due to 'efficiency' is extremely naive - and belies a misunderstanding of how that kind of employment works. Governments are not efficient, generally. In some areas - more than others. 'Teaching' I think is fairly efficient, it's hard to screw up. Building roads, similarly. But other functions can get way out of whack. Governments on some level employ as a means of redistribution. My sister in law works for Canadian government - there are 600 people to 'research' and 'strategy' for prisons etc. and yet we have no real meaningful reform, experimentation or thoughtfulness in our prison system. It's nearly as basic as it was 50 years ago. So why 600 people? Because they can. Government unions are the most powerful entities on planet earth. Those jobs will be reallocated elsewhere and there will be no 'operational savings' from UBI. More likely - they will increase the regulation/complexity of it so that it actually does require 'tons of overhead' to manage. UBI is a great theoretical idea, that doesn't meet the test of pragmatism. It will be about as effective as other forms of welfare. A cheaper experiment would be to simply allow people on welfare to have some kind of job/income. No need to re-write the book to see if that works out, which is one of the big things they are trying to find out with UBI.

dagw 10y ago

It does exactly the same thing as social security/welfare Not at all. The main problem with social security/welfare is that getting and staying on it is basically a job in itself. And the fear of accidentally doing something that will get you kicked out is enough to make people avoid taking shorter term work, freelancing, getting further education etc. etc. Take away all the effort and uncertainty of getting and staying on those programs and people will be freed up to potentially make all kinds of changes to their lives that are currently not possible.