4 ms·

I think that fundamentally, the thing we're going to run up against is population growth. I think history has proven that we can live in extremely wretched con

I think that fundamentally, the thing we're going to run up against is population growth. I think history has proven that we can live in extremely wretched conditions. By giving money to people, are we going to be increasing their living standards or just creating more mouths to feed? Note that the basic income only applies to whoever registers at the beginning of the program. Would that amount of basic income cause the population to explode, so that the per-capita amount of goods/money remains constant?

throwaway2048 10y ago
wealth is strongly inversely coorolated with population growth. Keeping people in poverty means they have more children, not the reverse.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  As replied to above, the basic income doesn't highly correspond to wealth on the scales involved based on the studies frequently cited.
- reddytowns 10y ago
  UBI would incentivize people to have more kids. I think that would override the wealth to children correlation. Also, wealthy people are often busy trying to maintain their own wealth. The excuse about not having kids is often about being more career oriented.
- aianus 10y ago
  Only because wealth is positively correlated with education and impulse control. There's no reason to believe handing a poor, uneducated person with no impulse control a big wad of cash will have the same effect.
marmot777 10y ago
Wealth has the opposite effect as a number of studies have demonstrated. People with a little money in their pocket have fewer kids. I can easily find more citations if you'd like but here's an outline of the concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  "A little money" is relative. They're giving on the order of 250 dollars a year, and the income/fertility chart only really kicks in at about 10k or 20k a year. I don't know the threshold between living in crushing poverty versus simple poverty, but this amount of money wouldn't greatly affect fertility rates based on the chart, but might encourage people to have more children.
  - marmot777 10y ago
    Ah, my knowledge of this was not detailed enough to catch that threshold. So in this Kenyan Village it's still $10k to $20k threshold?
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      I don't know if there's a threshold per se, but the X-axis on the graph you cited is demarcated as 10k per line. 250 dollars a year is about 1/40th of each unit on the X-axis. And that graph seems to apply to people all over the world, I don't see why this Kenyan village would be any different. The fertility reductions really only seem to matter once you get to 10k or 20k of annual income a year. I agree that if you gave 10k a year strings unattached to every person in that community, fertility might drop. However, by injecting that much capital into a poverty stricken area, fertility might actually increase, as they would be the most prosperous group by far in the area. Also, there would almost certainly be huge unintended consequences, such as massive inflation and the increase in deprivation of people not receiving the money.
      - marmot777 10y ago
        Yes, you make some sound points here for sure. What is your position on the concept of universal basic income, setting aside beta tests for now. And what do you think it's viable, what would it take to make it viable. Maybe consider a few scenarios say how it might work (or not work) in different parts of the world, including both developing and developed.

throwaway2048 10y ago

wealth is strongly inversely coorolated with population growth. Keeping people in poverty means they have more children, not the reverse.

jimmywanger 10y ago
As replied to above, the basic income doesn't highly correspond to wealth on the scales involved based on the studies frequently cited.
reddytowns 10y ago
UBI would incentivize people to have more kids. I think that would override the wealth to children correlation. Also, wealthy people are often busy trying to maintain their own wealth. The excuse about not having kids is often about being more career oriented.
aianus 10y ago
Only because wealth is positively correlated with education and impulse control. There's no reason to believe handing a poor, uneducated person with no impulse control a big wad of cash will have the same effect.

marmot777 10y ago

Wealth has the opposite effect as a number of studies have demonstrated. People with a little money in their pocket have fewer kids. I can easily find more citations if you'd like but here's an outline of the concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

jimmywanger 10y ago
"A little money" is relative. They're giving on the order of 250 dollars a year, and the income/fertility chart only really kicks in at about 10k or 20k a year. I don't know the threshold between living in crushing poverty versus simple poverty, but this amount of money wouldn't greatly affect fertility rates based on the chart, but might encourage people to have more children.
- marmot777 10y ago
  Ah, my knowledge of this was not detailed enough to catch that threshold. So in this Kenyan Village it's still $10k to $20k threshold?
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    I don't know if there's a threshold per se, but the X-axis on the graph you cited is demarcated as 10k per line. 250 dollars a year is about 1/40th of each unit on the X-axis. And that graph seems to apply to people all over the world, I don't see why this Kenyan village would be any different. The fertility reductions really only seem to matter once you get to 10k or 20k of annual income a year. I agree that if you gave 10k a year strings unattached to every person in that community, fertility might drop. However, by injecting that much capital into a poverty stricken area, fertility might actually increase, as they would be the most prosperous group by far in the area. Also, there would almost certainly be huge unintended consequences, such as massive inflation and the increase in deprivation of people not receiving the money.
    - marmot777 10y ago
      Yes, you make some sound points here for sure. What is your position on the concept of universal basic income, setting aside beta tests for now. And what do you think it's viable, what would it take to make it viable. Maybe consider a few scenarios say how it might work (or not work) in different parts of the world, including both developing and developed.